similar to: Hexagon and choosing of slots

> On Hexagon, the slot assignment is determined by the layout of the > instructions in memory. The order of the instructions in the packet does > not matter either in the IR, nor in the .s file, but it does when the > packet is encoded into the actual machine code. In LLVM, the Hexagon > shuffler orders the instructions just prior to encoding. > > Specifically, the

I need some help in defining a "print" method for my new S4 class definition. So fer I have worked like this: setClass("MyClass", sealed=F, representation(slot1 = "list", #create a new class slot2 = "vector", slot3 = "vector", slot4 = "vector")) setMethod("print",

Hi, The man page for new() suggests that if 'a' is an object with slots "slot1" and "slot2" and C is a class that extends the class of 'a', then the 2 following calls should be equivalent: new("C", a, ...) new("C", slot1=a at slot1, slot2=a at slot2, ...) This is generally the case but I just ran into a situation where it's not.

Thanks Martin for looking into this. H. On 05/13/2015 03:57 AM, Martin Maechler wrote: >>>>>> Herv? Pag?s <hpages at fredhutch.org> >>>>>> on Tue, 12 May 2015 15:18:42 -0700 writes: > >> Hi, > >> The man page for new() suggests that if 'a' is an object with slots >> "slot1" and "slot2" and C is a

Dear all, I have created a new S4 class with name "MyClass". Please see below for it's definition. Now I want to create a method for the show() function for this class. In defining this method, what I want is, once user would like see an object of this class some values will be displayed. Then R will ask for **press Enter**. Once user presses enter then, remaining values will be

>>>>> Joshua Wiley <jwiley.psych at gmail.com> >>>>> on Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:19:16 +1100 writes: > Hi, I realize this is an old thread, but just wondering > whether a conclusion was ever reached on this issue? I'm > using formula(NULL) but it would be nice if default > initialization worked for formula classes as well. Well,

I'm unclear how does DFAPacketizer and the scheduler know a given instruction is a load. Here is what I'm talking about Let's assume my VLIW target is described as follows: def MyTargetItineraries : ProcessorItineraries<[Slot0, Slot1], [], [ .............................. InstrItinData<RI, [InstrStage<1, [Slot0, Slot1]>]>,

Dear all, I am having problem to create a package when this package is supposed to have some newly created s4 class. Here is my workout: > #rm(list = ls()) > setClass("aClass", sealed=T, representation(slot1 = "vector", slot2 = "character")) [1] "aClass" > fn1 <- function(x, y, z) { + x <- x[1] + y <- y[1] + z <- as.character(z[1]) +

This patch set is intended for the next merge window. They are just enhancements of the already merged patches or ia64 porting from x86 paravirt techniques and that their quality is enough for merge. This patch set is for binary patch optimization for paravirt_ops. The binary patch optimization is important on native case because the paravirt_ops overhead can be reduced by converting indirect

This patch set is intended for the next merge window. They are just enhancements of the already merged patches or ia64 porting from x86 paravirt techniques and that their quality is enough for merge. This patch set is for binary patch optimization for paravirt_ops. The binary patch optimization is important on native case because the paravirt_ops overhead can be reduced by converting indirect

This patch set is intended for the next merge window. They are just enhancements of the already merged patches or ia64 porting from x86 paravirt techniques and that their quality is enough for merge. This patch set is for binary patch optimization for paravirt_ops which depends on the patch series I sent out, ia64/pv_ops, xen: more paravirtualization. The binary patch optimization is important on

This patch set is intended for the next merge window. They are just enhancements of the already merged patches or ia64 porting from x86 paravirt techniques and that their quality is enough for merge. This patch set is for binary patch optimization for paravirt_ops which depends on the patch series I sent out, ia64/pv_ops, xen: more paravirtualization. The binary patch optimization is important on

This patch set is for the next merge window. They are just enhancements of the already merged patches or ia64 porting from x86 paravirt techniques and that their quality is enough for merge. This patch set is for binary patch optimization for paravirt_ops which depends on the patch series I sent out, ia64/pv_ops, xen: more paravirtualization. The binary patch optimization is important on native

This patch set is for the next merge window. They are just enhancements of the already merged patches or ia64 porting from x86 paravirt techniques and that their quality is enough for merge. This patch set is for binary patch optimization for paravirt_ops which depends on the patch series I sent out, ia64/pv_ops, xen: more paravirtualization. The binary patch optimization is important on native

This patch set is for binary patch optimization for paravirt_ops. The binary patch optimization is important on native case because the paravirt_ops overhead can be reduced by converting indirect call into in-place execution or direct call. The first patch imports helper functions which themselves doesn't interesting things. The second patch replaces the indirect function calls with a

This patch set is for binary patch optimization for paravirt_ops. The binary patch optimization is important on native case because the paravirt_ops overhead can be reduced by converting indirect call into in-place execution or direct call. The first patch imports helper functions which themselves doesn't interesting things. The second patch replaces the indirect function calls with a

I get this error no matter what I do. I've tried switching to different locations on the TDM400p to no avail. I've got the card setup with the green module in slot1 and red in slot2. My config files are exactly like the "Configure Dev-Kit PCI (TDM11B)" example. http://www.digium.com/index.php?menu=configuration#TDM11B When I run ztcfg -v, I get: 2 channels configured.

Program your locked ADSI phone not by unlocking it but by using the feature slot FDN download descriptors of ADSI SEC security code telco provider lock number key from database list. ch33s3 First reset phone. Set clock to Jan 1 12:00AM (options-2?). exit to main screen. press options, (mute/flash/speaker/?) until you see firmware version. press # to reset. google more info, bam ch33s3d ;

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek < kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 11/17/2015 12:26 PM, Rail Shafigulin wrote: > >> >> I tried setting >> let mayLoad = 1 { >> class InstrLD .... { >> } >> } >> >> But that didn't seem to work. When I looked at the debug output the >> latency for the load

Sure I will split it and put it in two patches. Give me few hours. I need to test those patches. Sirish On 4/19/2012 8:40 AM, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:18:05PM -0500, Sirish Pande wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Here's a patch for Hexagon Packetizer for review. This patch does >> not yield any warnings. >> > Would it be possible to split this