similar to: Division ?

I want to make the matrix to be indexed from row (column) 0, not 1 Can I do that? How? Thanks

hi there, i've been able to successfully run asterisk with the Voicetronix OpenLine4 card, it can accept calls and function normally. The only problem I'm experiencing so far is getting the card to outdial to a third party. What I'm trying to achieve is basically call bridging, where the caller dials in to asterisk, some IVR plays and then attempts to perform a "transfer"

Hello folks, I'm having trouble configuring Asterisk to play an "invalid extension" message to anyone dialing an undefined extension. First I tried using the 'i' pseudo-extension, but it didn't work at all; searching the wiki I found that page: http://www.voip-info.org/tiki-index.php?page=Asterisk%20i%20extension where it basically says that the 'i'

Why is it that newcomers always feel like inserting 'Answer' is a necessary step in their extension.conf entries? >[voiptalk.org] >;forwards any calls starting with an "8" thru voiptalk.org >exten => _8.,1,Answer >exten => _8.,3,SetCIDNum(55555555) >exten => _8.,4,SetCIDName(My Name And Surname) >exten => _8.,5,Dial(SIP/${EXTEN:1}@voiptalk.org,,g)

I guess you could call this a noobie problem as well. I''m trying to divide two numbers by each other... For example: <% for element in project.elements %> Element: <%= horizontal_bar_graph [element.name, ((element.completed_hours / element.hours) * 100)] %><br /> <% end %> element.completed_hours == 2 element.hours == 5 (2 / 5) * 100 == 40 However,

Hello all, Im having a slight problem with my website. I have a division that is updated using a link_to_remote call. Now, inside the view I can put plain text and everything is fine. However, if I try to pass a variable from the controller to the view it does not work. For example I can have this as the controller: def show_news @testvariable = "shizzlenitboo" end And

Hi , anyone knows how to do a bandwidth division for clients on a subnet on Linux ?

Dear R gurus. Is there an R function equivalent to octaves / (Right division) withouth forming the inverse of Y' using solve ? [snip - from octave docu] Right division. This is conceptually equivalent to the expression (inverse (y') * x')' but it is computed without forming the inverse of Y'. If the system is not square, or if the coefficient matrix

Hello everybody, while developing an application for the company I work for, I noticed that very often libtheora reports division by zero errors. I fixed those errors by adding a few additional checks, but I'm not 100% sure that these checks are correct. Could you please check out the attached patch file and tell me what you think? Best regards, Marco Giovannini -- /*

Dear R-users, is there any package that allows for a division of two polynomials? Regards, M. Fischer Dr. Matthias Fischer Friedrich-Alexander-Universit?t Erlangen-N?rnberg Lehrstuhl f?r Statistik und ?konometrie Lange Gasse 20 90403 N?rnberg Telefon: 0911 / 5302-271 Telefax: 0911 / 5302-277 E-Mail: Matthias.Fischer at wiso.uni-erlangen.de

Hi, In detectRefreshRateOfScreen(), we have s->redrawTime = 1000 / s->opt[COMP_SCREEN_OPTION_REFRESH_RATE].value.i; When the refresh rate is autodetected through RandR's XRRConfigCurrentRate function, 0 can be returned in certain cases, leading to division by zero. An example of this situation would be the DynamicTwinView option in the nVidia proprietary drivers[0] (note that this

In lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/TargetLowering.cpp there are some functions magic() and magicu() that support optimising division by a constant. I'd like to use these functions in an LLVM FunctionPass that I'm working on. The attached patch moves these functions out of TargetLowering.cpp and into the APInt class, so that I can reuse them in my pass. What do you think? It looks to me like

On Apr 23, 2009, at 6:26 AM, Jay Foad wrote: > In lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/TargetLowering.cpp there are some > functions magic() and magicu() that support optimising division by a > constant. I'd like to use these functions in an LLVM FunctionPass that > I'm working on. The attached patch moves these functions out of > TargetLowering.cpp and into the APInt class, so that I

> The patch looks fine to me, does it pass regression tests etc? Yes, I've just run a successful "make" in the test-suite module. It took hours! Is there a smaller set of regression tests I could run for changes like this in future? Thanks, Jay.

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Jay Foad <jay.foad at gmail.com> wrote: > > The patch looks fine to me, does it pass regression tests etc? > > Yes, I've just run a successful "make" in the test-suite module. It > took hours! Is there a smaller set of regression tests I could run for > changes like this in future? "make unittests" is a smaller set

On Apr 27, 2009, at 11:33 AM, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Jay Foad <jay.foad at gmail.com> wrote: > > The patch looks fine to me, does it pass regression tests etc? > > Yes, I've just run a successful "make" in the test-suite module. It > took hours! Is there a smaller set of regression tests I could run for > changes like this

On 27 October 2010 14:20, Tobias Grosser <grosser at fim.uni-passau.de> wrote: > Hi, > > I am just found a scalar evolution function that does not seem canonical to > me. > > The C code I used to produce it is: > > long foo (long n, long m) { > long i, j; > long A[n][m]; > > for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) > for (j = 0; j < m; ++j) >

Hi Dilan, On 31 May 2016 at 15:34, Dilan Manatunga via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > What is the reason for the exclusion of sdiv from the operations considered > valid for execution in a truncated format. A 16-bit division of INT16_MIN by -1 is undefined behaviour but the original ext/trunc version is well-defined as 0. Cheers. Tim.

On 31 May 2016 at 15:42, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > A 16-bit division of INT16_MIN by -1 is undefined behaviour but the > original ext/trunc version is well-defined as 0. Sorry, INT16_MIN again actually. The main point still stands though, I think. Tim.

Just to verify, a 16-bit divion of INT16_MIN by -1 results in INT16_MIN again? If the issue only occurs in this case, why aren't there checks to see if we can simplify sdiv in cases where we know that numerator is not INT16_MIN or the denominator is not -1. For example, we could simplify divides involving one operand constants. Is it because this case is most likely rare? -Dilan On Tue,