similar to: [RFC] Extension to TableGen's AssemblerPredicates to support combining features with ORs

Hi, I have a data.frame that looks something like this. feature 5637 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?1321N1 feature1 -0.568750616 -0.934748758 feature2 -0.913080902 -0.941455172 feature3 0.442477294 -0.257921866 I want to change it to look like this. feature ? ? ?cell.line ? ? value feature1 5637 -0.568750616 feature2 5637 -0.913080902 feature3 5637 0.442477294 feature1 1321N1

Dear all, I have a data frame, which looks like this: Subject | Block | Trial | Feature1 | Feature2 .... 1 | 1 | 1 | ... | ... 1 | 1 | 2 | ... | ... 1 | 2 | 1 | ... | ... 1 | 2 | 2 | ... | ... 1 | 3 | 1 | ... | ... ...| ...| ...| ... | ... Can I remove the "Trial" column by averaging all the rows and without using a "for loop"? At the end my data frame should look like

Is there a way to enable/disable target features through clang? I found this, https://github.com/avr-llvm/llvm/issues/9, but this seems to be talking about llc -mattr=+feature1,-feature2... Is there something equivalent for clang? -- Rail Shafigulin Software Engineer Esencia Technologies -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I'm trying to enable/disable a target feature through clang. Here is how my target looks like // Esencia subtarget features //===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// def FeatureMul : SubtargetFeature<"mul", "HasMul", "true", "Enable hardware multiplier">; def FeatureDiv

The ALTERNATIVE() and ALTERNATIVE_2() macros are GNU assembler macros, which makes them quite inflexible for future changes. Convert them to preprocessor macros. Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe at redhat.com> --- arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S | 12 +++--- arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S | 10 ++--- arch/x86/entry/entry_64_compat.S | 8 ++--

Hi We are provisioning some default features to our customers like "automated answer when outside labor time", "rerouting when Subscriber Absent", and so. These are macro calls embedded in key points inside the dialplan. Since not all customers need/want all features and they (the features) are customized, I named them like [macro-feature1-ClientA], [macro-feature4-ClientF],

I have a plain text file, ASCII, unix line breaks. 1 single line, and all that is in it is the word "radio". Here's some test dialplan: exten => 5,1,Verbose(Context: ${CONTEXT} Exten:${EXTEN}) same => n,Set(feature=${FILE(/home/test/feature-1.txt,0,1,l,u)}) same => n,Verbose(${feature}) same => n,Set(featurefile=/home/test/feature-1.txt) same =>

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 01:54:33PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > It would be great to hear from kernel people if it works adequately for > what you guys want it for :-) Sure, ping me when you have the final version and I'll try to build gcc with it and do some size comparisons. Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 01:54:33PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > It would be great to hear from kernel people if it works adequately for > what you guys want it for :-) Sure, ping me when you have the final version and I'll try to build gcc with it and do some size comparisons. Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the

Extend mkfs options to specify optional or potentially backwards incompatible features. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> --- man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in | 9 ++++ mkfs.c | 124 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 2 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in b/man/mkfs.btrfs.8.in index a3f1503..548e754 100644 ---

Hi All, I have faced decoding conflict of DisassemblerTables from TableGen. I have instructions with same encoding and different mnemonic among different architecture versions. I have used Predicates and AssemblerPredicates to distinguish them on Codegen and Assembler but it does not work on Disassembler. When I look at TableGen/FixedLenDecoderEmitter.cpp, once there is decoding conflict,

I use Samba 2.2.12 like print server and all were fine until some XP clients start upgrade to SP2. The "feature box" (see attached feature2.jpg) is absent on SP2 clients (see attached feature1.jpg) but still present for 2K, XP, XP-SP1 clients. Other things look well with SP2 but I guess that absence of this "feature box" probably hide some other problems. How can I fix it?

With CONFIG_PARAVIRT, the kernel .text is littered with a bunch of calls to pv_irq_ops function pointers, like: callq *0xffffffff81e3a400 (pv_irq_ops.save_fl) In non-Xen paravirt environments -- including native, KVM, Hyper-V, and VMware -- the above code gets patched by native_patch() to look like this instead: pushfq pop %rax nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1) So in most scenarios,

This changes the pv ops code generation to more closely match reality. For example, instead of: callq *0xffffffff81e3a400 (pv_irq_ops.save_fl) vmlinux will now show: pushfq pop %rax nop nop nop nop nop which is what the runtime version of the code will show in most cases. This idea was suggested by Andy Lutomirski. The benefits are: - For the most common runtime cases

This changes the pv ops code generation to more closely match reality. For example, instead of: callq *0xffffffff81e3a400 (pv_irq_ops.save_fl) vmlinux will now show: pushfq pop %rax nop nop nop nop nop which is what the runtime version of the code will show in most cases. This idea was suggested by Andy Lutomirski. The benefits are: - For the most common runtime cases

Hi all, Short version I get decoding conflicts during generation of disassembler tables for my modified PowerPC backend: 001100.......................... ................................ ADDIC 001100__________________________ E_LBZ 001100__________________________ Which methods can be used to resolve this kind of error? Long version: I'm trying to implement support for the PowerPC

All, I have arranged for an LLVM BoF at SC13 in Denver: http://sc13.supercomputing.org/schedule/event_detail.php?evid=bof143 If you will be at SC13, have an interesting project based on or within LLVM, and would be willing to come to the BoF and spend 10 minutes or so giving an overview of it, please email me. I am trying to get a collection of people together to talk about vectorization and

I administer a nano-setup on a dorm-network with a couple of hundred active users. The setup uses 2 x 2 2Mb/s DSLs, meaning two DSLs from each of two different ISPs. It works fine except for some minor glitches: https-sites often kicks users. This was solved by tying outbound https to a single DSL. Not the best solution but it works so far that users dont kicked from the sites anymore. Now

In listening to this week''s Ruby on Rails Podcast the issue of YAML came up, and it got me thinking. Yes, YAML is very simple and cleanly defines both the database configuration and fixtures, but couldn''t the same thing be accomplished in Ruby? Jamis and others have encouraged the use of DSLs to simplify and clarify code. Since Django (whose author was on the podcast) uses

Is this the appropriate place for GSoC conversations? If I understand the proposal correctly, there should be a lexer (written in R) that exposes an API; that API would be used by segregated mini-parsers (Roclets) which do the dirty work of Roxygen -> {html, LaTeX, DocBook, ...} translation. The lexer should ship with a proof-of-concept Roclet. Have I missed anything?