similar to: [LLVMdev] Questions on Memory Optimizations

Hello! When I simulate variance at only a single level in a nested analysis using lme (all levels are random effects), the results confuse me. Instead of lme reporting high variance in only that simulated level, substantial variance (>10% of simulated level) often appears in other levels -- in some configurations, as often as 50% of the time. Usually this spurious variance shows up in

Hi all, I didn't get a response to my post of this issue a week ago, so I've tried to clarify: When I use lme to analyze a model of nested random effects, the variance estimates of levels higher in the hierarchy appear to have much more variance than they should. In the example below with 4 levels, I simulate variance in level 2 (sd=1.0) and level 4 (sd=0.1), but levels 1 and 3 do

From: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs at redhat.com> We've previously had identical naming between vertex and texture formats, so it mostly made sense to define these together. However, upcoming patches are going to transition the driver over to using updated texture header definitions using NVIDIA's naming, and this will no longer be the case. Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs at

Why not fix the new names instead to be like the old names? Seems like that would be way simpler... On Feb 15, 2016 12:38 AM, "Ben Skeggs" <skeggsb at gmail.com> wrote: > From: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs at redhat.com> > > We've previously had identical naming between vertex and texture > formats, so it mostly made sense to define these together. > > However,

From: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs at redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs at redhat.com> --- src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nv50/g80_defs.xml.h | 279 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 279 insertions(+) create mode 100644 src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nv50/g80_defs.xml.h diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nv50/g80_defs.xml.h

What is the current size champion for ogg vorbis abled players? Thanks Ken Petty http://www.oggcafe.com -----Original Message----- From: vorbis-request@xiph.org [mailto:vorbis-request@xiph.org] Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 2:00 PM To: vorbis@xiph.org Subject: Vorbis Digest, Vol 31, Issue 11 Send Vorbis mailing list submissions to vorbis@xiph.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the

Hi all, The price at samsungrb.com on the YP-F1V just dropped to $10. It is usually around $30. I am posting here first with the hope other vorbis enthusiasts will get in on the deal before it hits fatwallet and slickdeals. I plan to post it to fatwallet.com Monday morning if they are still available. For me, one player shipped was $18, two players shipped was $24.

Hello! Maybe "frame" is not the right term in this context. I explain my problem by example code: fun2 <- function(objName, add) { ## the object "objName" should be increased by "add", ## but the evaluation should be done in the calling function (here: fun1) ## ...... what's the right code?? } fun1 <- function() { x <- 1 fun2("x",

It seems that R (unlike S-plus) allows assignments to elements of a vector objects even when the object do not exists locally (inside a fucntion) in cases where an object of the same name exists globally. I guess this is not really desired behaviour: R v1.8.0 > a Error: Object "a" not found > testfunc <- function() {a[1]<-1; a} > testfunc() Error in testfunc() :

Hi, This is my first post, sorry if not in the right format. I am stuck at a place where I have a code fragment that runs in normal gcc but fails when I give -fplugin=dragonegg.so extern int *testfunc(); extern __typeof (testfunc) testfunc __asm__ ("" "__GI_testfunc") __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden"))); extern __typeof(testfunc) __testfunc; extern __typeof

I'm a beginner in R, and trying to fit linear models with different intercepts per group, of the type y ~ A*x1 + B, where x1 is a numerical variable. I cannot understand whether I should use y1 ~ x1 +1 or y1 ~ order(x1) + 1 Although in the toy example included it makes a small difference, in models with many groups the models without order() converge slower if at all!

I am trying to do parallel programming and I tried this library(doSNOW) library(foreach) testfunc<-function(x){ x<-x+1 x } noc<-2 cl <- makeCluster(do.call(rbind,rep(list("localhost"),noc)), type = "SOCK") registerDoSNOW(cl) clusterExport(cl=cl,c("testfunc.r")) testl<-foreach(pp=1:2) %dopar% { testfunc(pp) } And this works but if I try to

On Feb 11, 2013, at 12:02 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Beyond that, though, I've hit one hierarchy in the Static Analyzer > that does this as well: ProgramPoint. On IRC Jordan Rose mentioned > that there's another more pervasive use of this pattern in the Static > Analyzer, the SVal hierarchy. > > So, Ted, how objectionable would it be for me

Hi, I'm looking for a most efficient way to call an R function from C++ in a package. I know there are two functions (`R_forceAndCall` and `Rf_eval`) that can do the "call" part, but both are slow compared to calling the same function in R. I also try to use Rcpp and it is the worse one. Here is my test code: C++ code: ``` // [[Rcpp::export]] SEXP C_test1(SEXP f, SEXP x) { SEXP

BLAST! LLVM mailing list headers are still royally screwed up... My message is below... On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Talin<viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > Hey all, it's been a while since I have posted on this list, but I've > been continuing my work with LLVM and getting lots done :) > > One question I wanted to ask is whether anyone had any advice on how to >

First off, thanks for the help so far. >From what I have been able to tell, emitPrologue kicks in after the arguments for the function have been copied. For example, consider the function int testfunc( int foo, int bar ); Emitting assembly code from the llvm-gcc frontend in a small test program gives the following for the call to testfunc movl $1338, (%esp) movl $1339, 4(%esp) call

$ gcc -S test.c $ cat test.s .file "test.c" .text .globl __GI___testfunc .hidden __GI___testfunc .type __GI___testfunc, @function __GI___testfunc: .LFB0: .cfi_startproc pushq %rbp .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16 .cfi_offset 6, -16 movq %rsp, %rbp .cfi_def_cfa_register 6 movl $0, %eax popq %rbp .cfi_def_cfa 7, 8

John Chambers suggested that I forward this thread (first posted to r-help) along to r-devel... Thanks, Kevin -----Original Message----- From: John Chambers [mailto:jmc@research.bell-labs.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 6:31 PM To: Bartz, Kevin Cc: r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch Subject: Re: [R] [ and setMethod conflict? Definitely something funny going on, but perhaps a little less sweeping

Hi All, I'm beginning to learn & explore the LLVM API via the C bindings. Am running into some troubles but at the moment cannot tell if this is just my misunderstanding/misuse of the API, or a bug somewhere. I have a bitcode file generated with 'clang --emit-llvm' and I know this is good because I can run the 'test' function inside with lli, no problems. However I run

Hello, I'm trying to combine the parallel computing power available through NVIDIA CUDA (www.nvidia.com/cuda) from within R. CUDA is an extension to the C language, so I thought it would be possible to do this. If I have a C file with an empty function which includes a needed CUDA library (cutil.h) and compile this to an .so file using a NVIDIA compiler (nvcc), called 'myFunc.so' I