similar to: Need a optimized version of this

ANNOUNCEMENT: 20% Discount on Books from Chapman & Hall/CRC Press! SPECIAL 20% OFF NEW R BOOKS FROM CHAPMAN & HALL/CRC Use discount code 952HW to take advantage of these special offers. Chapman & Hall/CRC is pleased to provide our latest titles on R at a 20% discount. And that's all you will pay, because Chapman & Hall/CRC offers free standard shipping on ALL book

Hi everyone, For one of our projects we have a need to deploy and maintain a demo. As a result I''ve attempted to setup a set of rake tasks for the job. My goal is have one rake task called "deploy_demo" which purges the database, migrates to the current schema, and loads the db from a set of fixture files in a specified location. I''ve written two new tasks the perform

HI, Sorry for messing up.. I want to transform the following dataset: product min_price max_price mean_price country price_band 11 34 50 40 VN 0-300 22 10 30 15 VN 0-300 Into: product VN price_band 11 40 0-300 [34,50] 22 15

> On further reflection, I actually like the idea of adding 4 attributes > better than adding knowledge of "int" into TargetData. "int" is a C > notion that doesn't really belong in TargetData, and it is better for > the optimizers to have the front-end expose the implicit promotions. This is very true and indeed applicable to this problem... So I have to

Hi, I work in a kitchen production factory and I try to predict sales of kitchen for an horizon of 12 weeks, and I have to turn into account promotions. My sales are express in number of command, my promotion are express with dummy variables. (1 if promotion, 0 else). The first problem is that my time serie contain a trend and a seasonality. (but the serie is stationary) I use the VAR function

Previously we talked about adding new attributes to function to identify the promotion class. > sign_ext_from_i8, sign_ext_from_i16 > zero_ext_from_i8, zero_ext_from_i16 Aren't these attributes more applicable to return value? of course then the question would be if they are also applicable to parameters too? (because we use same attributes for parameters and return value)? or

Any thoughts on this? I would like to get it right before jumping into the nuts and bolts of it.... Thanks ________________________________ From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:39 AM To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] promotion of return value.

I have the following form <%= start_form_tag :action => ''rejectQuoteSave'', :id => @project %> <p><label for="offer_reason_rejected"><span class="required">* </span>Reason</label><br/> <%= text_area ''offer'', ''reason_rejected'' %></p> <%= submit_tag

Below I have pasted the latest design that we discussed... Now we would like to pick it up and do the implementation. 1) Is there any last change that we would like to add? 2) Has anyone been working on it? I haven't seen any thing new in the code so I assume the answer is no... Thanks Alireza Moshtaghi Senior Software Engineer Development Systems, Microchip Technology Subject: Troubling

On Mar 12, 2009, at 11:31 AMPDT, Andrew Haley wrote: > Rafael Espindola wrote: >>>> 1) The return value promotion will be removed from llvm backend and >>>> implemented in both front-ends (clang and llvm-gcc) >>>> >>>> 2) The promotions are only applied to the return value in the body >>>> of the function. >>>> Return

Rafael Espindola wrote: >>> 1) The return value promotion will be removed from llvm backend and >>> implemented in both front-ends (clang and llvm-gcc) >>> >>> 2) The promotions are only applied to the return value in the body >>> of the function. >>> Return value of function definition and declaration will not be >>> promoted

>> 1) The return value promotion will be removed from llvm backend and >>   implemented in both front-ends (clang and llvm-gcc) >> >> 2) The promotions are only applied to the return value in the body >>   of the function. >>   Return value of function definition and declaration will not be >> promoted You might want to look at bug

Faculty members also have school's visibility nationwide and spurring economic development in the city.school's visibility nationwide and spurring economic development in the city.Faculty members also have school's visibility nationwide and spurring economic development in the city.DALLAS ? A grouplast month when the site Hello! stock holder, We are a stock promotion company and

Faculty members also have school's visibility nationwide and spurring economic development in the city.school's visibility nationwide and spurring economic development in the city.Faculty members also have school's visibility nationwide and spurring economic development in the city.DALLAS ? A grouplast month when the site Hello! stock holder, We are a stock promotion company and

B. Scott Michel wrote: >B. Scott Michel wrote: > > >>It'd be easy to hack PromoteOp to make a pass to determine all operands' >>promoted value types, take the max, then figure out some way to >>re-promote them to maximal promoted value type. Except that this is a >>non-optimal solution requiring PromoteOp to potentially traverse the >>operand

Using acts_as_ferret I''m trying to do a query like: active:(true) title|body:(#{params[:s]}) product_price:( >= #{params[:min]}) Where I want to return only the active products that contain the search term in the title or body and has a minimum price >= params[:min] I''m finding that even though I''m indexing the product price as an integer (so no .00 to cause

Mangia a colori II! Keywords Population, health promotion/Public Theories, Methods & Perspectives Abstract An initiative of health-promotion to the expansion of the "instruments" able to assure the control to the population on their own level of health, to improve it through activity that partly concern to the sanitary system and partly to other sectors, with the use of internal

Hi Language Lawyers! In PR23827 ( https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23827 ), a bitwise op on booleans is considered equivalent to a logical op: if ((x < 3) & (y > 10)) effectively becomes: if ((x < 3) && (y > 10)) where x and y are of type 'int'. The second statement (&&) requires short-circuit evaluation to bypass the y comparison when the x

Take advantage of a 20% discount on the most recent R books from Chapman & Hall/CRC! Chapman and Hall/CRC is pleased to offer our latest books on R - all available through our website at a 20% discount to users of the software. To take advantage of this permanent offer, that is valid across the board for all of our R books, simply visit http://www.crcpress.com/, choose your titles, and insert

Chris, I did not quite understand the "The bad thing about ..." part of your argument. I'm not sure which of the two scenarios are you comparing (promoting in FrontEnd vs BackEnd) or (promotion to int vs i32) Regardless, I agree with you and shap that promotions should take place in the FrontEnd and this is my reason: The standard allows calling a function without prototype and