similar to: a problem of approach

Dear R-devel, I'm trying to validate the results from a C function, against a (trial and tested) older R function. For reasons unknown to me, the C function seems to give different result sometimes at each trial, even with the very same data. These are the relevant outputs from R: > library(QCA) Loading required package: lpSolve > benchmark <- function(x, y) { + index <- 0

Hello It seems that sweave always runs in the global environment. I want to run sweave from within a function, and pass a variable into sweave, however when I do this, sweave doesn't see the variable. Here's my example test_sweave.Rnw file |% \documentclass[a4paper]{article} \usepackage[OT1]{fontenc} \usepackage{Sweave} \begin{document} \title{Test Sweave Document} \author{Paul

Hi, I would like to ask if LLVM provides a utility function like 'isMallocCall' to check if the 'call' instruction is calling some 'foo' user defined function? If there is no such utility function then I am thinking to do this in the following way: bool testFoo(CallInst *CI) { Function *Callee = CI->getCalledFunction(); if (Callee->getName() == "foo")

Dear list, I have a vector of numbers, let's say: myvec <- c(2, 8, 24, 26, 51, 57, 58, 78, 219) My task is to reduce this vector to non-reducible numbers; small numbers can cross-out some of the larger ones, based on a function let's say called reduce() If I apply the function to the first element 2, my vector gets shorted to: > (myvec <- reduce(myvec[1])) [1] 2 24 51

"Hassan, Ahmad" <ahmad.hassan at sap.com> writes: > I would like to ask if LLVM provides a utility function like > 'isMallocCall' to check if the 'call' instruction is calling some > 'foo' user defined function? > > If there is no such utility function then I am thinking to do this in > the following way: > > bool testFoo(CallInst

Hi there, I''m using Log4r in my rails projects. On log.error an email is sent using the EmailOutputter. I know changed the EmailOutputter to include a global var in the subject (MDC) since the subject is normally static. I want to set this var to the exception message, so it is sent as the subject. Can anyone tell me how to do this in rails? Basically: raise e or some other cause

Dear list, Just upgraded to MacOS Mavericks, fresh install of R 3.0.2 and trying to install a previous version of my QCA package (the most recent one source file, which passed the R CMD check --as-cran with R 3.0.1) I seem to have some difficulties in the C code, apparently it doesn't find some headers (please see below): ============ $ R CMD INSTALL --no-multiarch

http://dovecot.org/test/ - Several mbox fixes, upgrade recommended for test68 mbox users - Possibly fixes some IMAP hangs where Dovecot just stopped replying - Fixed delay-newmail workaround. It was badly broken before. And somewhat off topic advertisement: I got a bit distracted from Dovecot a week ago when a guy started mailing me about wanting to write an irssi2 client as a project to

Dear r-devel, I am trying to automatically check if two successive versions of a package have the same results (i.e. code not broken), by parsing the example sections for each function against a previously tested version. While trying to replicate the code from example(), I am facing an error related with te "index.search" function (line 7 in the example() code). This is the code I am

Dear Adrian Dusa, others, I've recently started to learn R in order to use the QCA package because i think it might offer what other QCA packages don't: possibilities for quite a few conditions and large n. However, can someone tell me approx. how much RAM i need to run QCA on set of +/- 400.000 cases and +/- 15 conditions? (or differently: how much time will it take with RAM of a

I've run an ancova, edadysexo is a factor with 3 levels,and log(lcc) is the covariate (continous variable) I get this results > ancova<-aov(log(peso)~edadysexo*log(lcc)) > summary(ancova) Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) edadysexo 2 31.859 15.9294 803.9843 <2e-16 *** log(lcc) 1 11.389 11.3887 574.8081 <2e-16 ***

Daniel, Well then my next (dumb?) question is why aren’t we using source level assert information For optimization ? --Peter Lawrence. From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org] Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 5:39 PM To: Lawrence, Peter <c_plawre at qca.qualcomm.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Early CSE clobbering llvm.assume On Fri, Jun

Hi Mark, Uhm... sometimes this is not always possible. For example I have a package QCA which produces truth tables (all combinations of presence / absence of causal conditions), and it uses the venn package to draw a Venn diagram. It is debatable if one should assimilate the "venn" package into the QCA package (other people might want Venn diagrams but not necessarily the other QCA

Mehdi, I’m seeing lots of “upgrading” logic, If (UseIPRA) createPass(new DummyCGSCCPass); if (UseIPRA) addPass(createRegUsageInfoPropPass()); if (UseIPRA) addPass(createRegUsageInfoCollector()); ??? --Peter. From: mehdi.amini at

On Oct 5, 2015, at 6:31 PM, Uwe Ligges <ligges at statistik.tu-dortmund.de> wrote: > > > On 05.10.2015 23:47, Andrew Robinson wrote: >> As a fourth option, I wonder if the first author could fork the package? >> >> Presumably, appropriately cited, a fork is permitted by the license under >> which it was released. Then the original package, by both

Vivek, I apologize if you took my original email as a request for implementation, I meant to be asking what is already available, I think the answer to that is the ‘preserves_most’ and ‘preserves_all’ attributes, but I will also Use ‘regmask’ if those prove to be too sub-optimal. I am still interested in figuring out the necessary and sufficient conditions For LLC to do optimal IPRA

Daniel, My point is this, If (cond) ---- optimizer takes advantage of knowing cond == true within the “then” part Assert(cond) ---- optimizer takes advantage of knowing cond == true for the rest of the scope Assume(cond) ---- optimizer takes advantage of knowing cond == true for the rest of the scope If we aren’t implementing these in a consistent manner (like using an intrinsic for

Thanks all, I don't know either (for the moment). It's all in the design phase still. Generally, I would also like to keep specific functions in specific packages, if at all possible. On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Mark van der Loo <mark.vanderloo at gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I'm not saying that Dmitri _should_ do it. I merely mention it as an > option that I think is

Vivek, Here’s the way I see it, let me know if you agree or disagree, You cannot optimize a function’s calling convention (register-usage) unless You can see and change every caller, and you only know this for non-static functions if you know that all calls to external functions cannot call back into the current compilation unit. #1 gives you the info necessary to change the call-site

Mehdi, I am looking for an understanding of 1) IPRA in general, 2) IPRA in LLVM. Whether I want to use LTO or not is a separate issue. 1) I currently believe it is a true statement that: If all external functions are known to not call back into the “whole-program” Being compiled, then IPRA is free to do anything at all to the functions being