similar to: 12th Root of a Square (Transition) Matrix

Using the small reproducible example below, I'd like to know if one can somehow use the matrix "sig" (defined below) to add a black outline (with lwd=2) to all pixels with a corresponding value of 1 in the matrix 'sig'? So for example, in the ggplot2 plot below, the pixel located at [1,3] would be outlined by a black square since the value at sig[1,3] == 1. This is my first

Target: FreeBSD 7.0-RC1 on amd64. autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: x86_64-unknown-freebsd7.0 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Target: amd64-undermydesk-freebsd Configured with: FreeBSD/amd64 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 4.2.1 20070719 [FreeBSD] [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release

LLVMers, The 2.2 prerelease is now available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.2/ If anyone can help test this release, I ask that you do the following: 1) Build llvm and llvm-gcc (or use a binary). You may build release (default) or debug. You may pick llvm-gcc-4.0, llvm-gcc-4.2, or both. 2) Run 'make check'. 3) In llvm-test, run 'make TEST=nightly report'. 4) When

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:42:18PM -0700, Tanya Lattner wrote: > The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: > http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ > > [...] > > 2) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the llvm-gcc4.0 source. > Compile everything. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite > (make TEST=nightly report). > > Send

Target: FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE on i386 autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: i386-unknown-freebsd6.2 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 3.4.6 [FreeBSD] 20060305 [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release build. llvm-gcc 4.2 from source.

Hi Eric, you can use an annotate-layer, eg ind<-which(sig>0,arr.ind = T) ggplot(m1.melted, aes(x = Month, y = Site, fill = Concentration), autoscale = FALSE, zmin = -1 * zmax1, zmax = zmax1) + geom_tile() + coord_equal() + scale_fill_gradient2(low = "darkred", mid = "white", high = "darkblue",

On 23.11.2012, at 15:12, john skaller <skaller at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > On 23/11/2012, at 5:46 PM, Sean Silva wrote: > >> Adding LLVMdev, since this is intimately related to the optimization passes. >> >>> I think this is roughly because some function level optimisations are >>> worse than O(N) in the number of instructions. >>

Hi all, I've started looking at the GlobalMerge pass, enabled by default on ARM and AArch64. I think we should reconsider that, at least for AArch64. As is, the pass just merges all globals together, in groups of 4KB (AArch64, 128B on ARM). At the time it was enabled, the general thinking was "it's almost free, it doesn't affect performance much, we might as well use it".

LLVMers, The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ I'm looking for members of the LLVM community to test the 2.1 release. There are 2 ways you can help: 1) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the appropriate llvm-gcc4.0 binary. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite (make TEST=nightly report). 2) Download

Dear all, I'm using R 2.8.1 under Windows Vista on a dual core 2,4 GhZ with 4 GB of RAM. I'm trying to reproduce a result out of "Analysis of Financial Time Series" by Ruey Tsay. In R I'm using the fGarch library. After fitting a ar(3)-garch(1,1)-model > model<-garchFit(~arma(3,0)+garch(1,1), analyse) I'm saving the results via > result<-model

I've searched the Web with Google and do not find what might cause this particular error from an invocation of cenboxplot: cenboxplot(cu.t$quant, cu.t$ceneq1, cu.t$era, range=1.5, main='Total Recoverable Copper', ylab='Concentration (mg/L)', xlab='Time Period') Error in if (n > 0) (1L:n - a)/(n + 1 - 2 * a) else numeric() : argument is of length zero I do

Dear all R-users, I wanted to fit a Garch(1,1) model to a dataset by: >garch1 = garch(na.omit(dat)) But I got a warning message while executing, which is: >Warning message: >NaNs produced in: sqrt(pred$e) The garch parameters that I got are: > garch1 Call: garch(x = na.omit(dat)) Coefficient(s): a0 a1 b1 1.212e-04 1.001e+00 1.111e-14 Can any one

Are these 225 compile time regressions real? It sure looks bad! Ciao, Duncan. On 01/12/11 09:39, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results > > URL http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/simple/nts/380/ > Nickname bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386:4 > Name curlew.apple.com > > Run ID Order Start Time End Time > Current 380

I am getting the following errors when I am trying to plot the data below. I cannot figure out the error. Error in plot.window(...) : need finite 'xlim' values In addition: Warning messages: 1: In min(x) : no non-missing arguments to min; returning Inf 2: In max(x) : no non-missing arguments to max; returning -Inf 3: In min(x) : no non-missing arguments to min; returning Inf 4: In max(x) :

#is there a way to get NA in the table of descriptive statistics instead of the function stopping Thank you in advance #data x.f <- structure(list(Site = structure(c(9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L, 9L), .Label = c("BC", "HC", "RM119", "RM148", "RM179", "RM185",

Hi I noticed a small inconsistency when using sum() vs cumsum() I have a char-based series > tryjpy$long [1] "0.0022" "-0.0002" "-0.0149" "-0.0023" "-0.0342" "-0.0245" "-0.0022" [8] "0.0003" "-0.0001" "-0.0004" "-0.0036" "-0.001" "-0.0011"

Most of libc++ doesn't have explicit template instantiations, which leads to a pretty significant build time and code size cost when using libc++, since a large number of common templates will be emitted by the compiler and coalesced by the linker. Notably, in include/__config, we have: #ifndef _LIBCPP_EXTERN_TEMPLATE #define _LIBCPP_EXTERN_TEMPLATE(...) #endif whereas before

>>>>> Tomas Kalibera >>>>> on Tue, 25 Aug 2020 09:29:05 +0200 writes: > On 8/23/20 5:02 PM, Rory Winston wrote: >> Hi >> >> I noticed a small inconsistency when using sum() vs cumsum() >> >> I have a char-based series >> >> > tryjpy$long >> >> [1]

Hi I am trying to do this: chisq.test(c(11, 13, 12, 18, 21, 43, 15, 12, 9, 10, 5, 28, 22, 11, 15, 11, 18, 28, 16, 8, 15, 19, 44, 18, 11, 23, 15, 23, 2, 5, 4, 14, 3, 22, 9, 0, 6, 19, 15, 32, 3, 16, 14, 10, 24, 16, 24, 31, 29, 28, 16, 26, 11, 11, 4, 17, 16, 13, 20, 26, 16, 19, 34, 19, 17, 14, 22, 25, 17, 12, 23, 14, 19, 30, 18, 10, 23, 21, 17, 16, 10, 14, 6, 17, 17, 10, 21, 25, 20, 4, 11, 4,

Did something change with exception handling recently? A bunch of lit bots are showing slower compile times for many tests. Ciao, Duncan. On 20/06/12 07:53, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > lab-mini-03__O0-g__clang_DEV__x86_64 test results > <http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/1283?compare_to=1278&baseline=999> > > Run Order Start Time Duration >