similar to: Vector Manipulation

Dear R-help, I am new to optim function and need some help with optimization. Problem description: I am trying to optimize a weights vector such that it produce maximum value for a function maxVal. The optimization is subjected to constraint. The constraints are a) Min weight should be greater than or equal to Zero. b) Max weight should be less than or equal to 1 c) Sum of the

Hi, Can anyone pls help me in plotting the following data? The data-set contains company name, specification-1, specification-2. The graph would basically plot company name with specification-1 on x-axis, & specification-2 on y-axis. Simply put - company name should get classified into one of the four quardrants created by specification 1 & specification2. Thanks.

If I use a simple dtrace script such as this: fbt::somefunc:entry{self->trace=1;} fbt::somefunc:return{self->trace=0;} fbt:::entry{} fbt:::return{printf("%lx", arg1);} then it will descend to whatever depth is necessary If I want to limit it to say 3 functions deep, how can I do that? The quick answer I want to use is to do "self->depth++" on each entry and then

Hi, suppose I do: b <- matrix(1:9,3,3) bname <- "b" now dim(b) returns [1] 3 3 and dim(bname) returns NULL is there a function to pass bname to such that dim returns the dimensions of b? like dim(somefunc(bname)) returns [1] 3 3 does 'somefunc' exist? daver +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |David Richmond It

I created a plugin to add simple Annotations to VarDecls and FieldDecls, and write this modified AST out to a file. I notice that when I use clang to compile this file I get different code then when I use the source directly. In both cases I'm compiling with -O4. Can anyone explain this? Thanks define i32 @somefunc(i32 (i32)* %ptr) nounwind uwtable { entry: %ptr.addr = alloca i32 (i32)*,

> I created a plugin to add simple Annotations to VarDecls and > FieldDecls, and write this modified AST out to a file. I notice that > when I use clang to compile this file I get different code then when I > use the source directly. In both cases I'm compiling with -O4. Can > anyone explain this? This is how clang implements annotations on local variables, that's all.

Hi, I have migrated an LLVM front-end from LLVM 3.5 to 3.8 and now to 3.9 and ORC, and there is a concept which I could not transfer. Consider: extern "C" { void somefunc() {} } … auto llvmfunc = llvm::Function::Create(type, llvmFunction::PrivateLinkage, "bla", module)); executionengine.addGlobalMapping(llvmfunc, &somefunc); // now I have llvmfunc to work with and

David Chisnall wrote: >On 2 Oct 2012, at 03:26, Magee, Josh wrote: > >> 1) An address of a local variable is taken in such a way as to expose the >> address of a stack location. >> - Example: the address of a local on the RHS of an assignment, the >> address of a local passed into function. > > It also sounds like it would be triggered for a

All, Currently, the Win32::API.new method will search for the function name, then the ''A'' (ANSI) name, and finally the ''W'' (Wide) name. The code looks something like this: fProc = GetProcAddress(hLibrary, TEXT(RSTRING(v_proc)->ptr)); if(!fProc){ VALUE v_ascii = rb_str_new3(v_proc); v_ascii = rb_str_cat(v_ascii, "A", 1); fProc =

Reid, Thanks! You were right! Changing the code to: float (*theF)(float) = (float (*)(float)) EE -> getPointerToFunction(f); float retVal = theF(arg1); made the difference. Now it is dozens of times faster! I don't really understand the cause though.. Why doesn't ExecutionEngine cope well with "define float @someFunc(float %x)" and needs this trick ? (but copes well with

Dear all, I have data like 3 coulmns and many rows. Each entry is less than 10. Example x y z 1 5 3 2 2 3 7 8 3 8 9 5 4 5 4 6 -------------------------- --------------------------- I have to sum entries of each coulmn (seperately) till it be 10. This i have to start for each row. And I want to assign no. of rows needed including that row too(it to be 10 or 10+, the moment it exceeds 10, i

Hi, I have the following sequence: in <- c(0, 0, 0, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 2, 0, 2, 0, 0, 2) >From this sequence I would like to get to the following sequence: out <- c(0, 0, 0, 3, 3, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 0, 2, 0, 2, 0, 0, 2) Basically,

Dear all, ? I don't know if you consider this a bug or feature, but it breaks reasonable code: 'unlist' and 'sapply' convert 'ordered' to 'factor' even if all levels are equal. Here is a simple example: o <- ordered(letters) o[[1]] lapply(o, min)[[1]]??????????# ordered factor unlist(lapply(o, min))[[1]]? # no longer ordered sapply(o, min)[[1]]??????????# no

Hello, I'm not sure how to state my question in a technically accurate manner, so I'll use a short example to clarify my problem: Say I have a vector, vec<-c(1,2,3,2) I would like to be able to "reference" the vector by using the string containing the name of the vector - that is, I would like to know of some function which is able to convert the string "vec"

> On Sep 10, 2018, at 5:25 PM, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sep 10, 2018, at 5:11 PM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com <mailto:preston.briggs at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> The phi instruction is irrelevant; just the way I think about things. >> The question is if the allocator believes that t0 and t2

Hi, Not sure if I am making a simple problem complex but still here we go: I have a data frame with four columns say, X1 X2 X3 and X4. I want to break X4 into deciles and for each deciles obtained, I want to see corresponding elements of X1. Ideally, the output should be in a tabular fashion as shown below: Deciles 1 Deciles 2 .... Deciles 10 X1-1 X1-2 X1-99 X1-5 X1-3 X1-10

Hello, I have been thinking about efficient implementation of dynamically typed languages in my spare time. Specifically, I'm working on a toy implementation of a tiny piece of Python using LLVM as a native code generating JIT. I've run into a bit of an issue, involving how Python deals with method calls. I'm not sure how/if I can implement this in LLVM. In Python, the following

R-Users, I am working with gplots (in gregmisc bundle) plotting some posterior probabilities (using barplot2) of harvest bag limits for discrete data (x-axis from 0 to 12, data is counts) and I ran into a couple of questions whose solutions have evaded me. 1) When I create and include the confidence intervals, the lower bound of the confidence intervals for several of the posterior probabilities

Hi all, Hypothetically, suppose I have a generic system with multiple address spaces such that each address space is accessed using different instructions. Now suppose, I wanted to add a new keywords 'foo' and 'bar' to the front of c variables and function return types such that the following would be valid: foo void* a; foo void* somefunc(){...} bar int b; int somefunc2(bar

Copying the list on a discussion of potentially general interest.... From: Kaylor, Andrew Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 1:11 PM To: 'Ding, Wei' <Wei.Ding2 at amd.com>; Sumner, Brian <Brian.Sumner at amd.com>; Arsenault, Matthew <Matthew.Arsenault at amd.com> Subject: RE: clarification needed for the constrained fp implementation. Hi Wei, I've been meaning to