similar to: "Spreading risk" in a matrix

I have a large matrix full of probabilities; I would like to convert each probability to a 1 or a 0 using rbinom. How can I do this on the entire matrix? The matrix was converted from a raster ArcMap dataset, so the matrix is essentially a map. Because of this, I have no column headings. Thanks! -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/rbinom-for-a-matrix-tp18366867p18366867.html

This is for ACroske but I can't find his email so I'll just send it to the list. Hi ACroske: The code below takes a zeros and ones matrix and puts ones in the places you wanted. It can be made shorter ( maybe ?. i haven't thought about that ) but first let me know if that's what you wanted ? The original matrix is called binary.matrix and the final matrix is called tempbinmat.

Hi Some of the samba users are spreading spam or automated replies. Is there any possible way to stop them? I've got the following two messages after my first post which are either spam or automated nonsense replies: Message 1: From: Jim Crippen <jcrippen@eliteint.com> To: Behrang Saeedzadeh <behrangsa@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:21:37 -0600 Subject: Out of Office

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:03?AM Yongji Xie <xieyongji at bytedance.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 2:28?PM Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 1:31?PM Xie Yongji <xieyongji at bytedance.com> wrote: > > > > > > To support interrupt affinity spreading mechanism, > > > this makes use of

> On 10/18/2016 3:12 PM, Sanjoy Das wrote: >> But in the new proposal, in: >> >> %x = freeze(poison) >> %y = xor %x, %x >> >> that is no longer allowed (%y _has_ to be 0) -- all uses of %x will see >> some garbage, but fixed bit pattern. > > What about this: > %x = phi poison, poison (I'm simplifying the syntax here) > Can this

Hi Alexandre, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Alexandre Isoard <alexandre.isoard at gmail.com> wrote: > I am probably missing something important, but what I mean is that you can > always convert: > > %y = xor %x, %x > to > %y = 0 > > Regardless of if %x is/might be an undef. That is, consider that reading %x > any number of times always give the value of its

Hi Mehdi, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >> sext(x): >> t = zext x >> result = 0 >> for i = 0 to bitwidth: >> result |= t << i; >> return result > > I don’t understand this definition of sext? > Are you trying to express that we will copy the sign one bit at a time, and so every `new`

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 12:05?PM Yongji Xie <xieyongji at bytedance.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:44?AM Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:33?AM Yongji Xie <xieyongji at bytedance.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:14?AM Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> wrote: >

Hi, Let me give you my view of the status: The proposal you mentioned was, I believe, well understood and accepted. Except for one bit, which was that it requires correct typing of load/store operations. That is, if you load an i32, it means you are loading a single 32-bit integer, not two 16-bit integers or something else. This is a valid concern because currently nor LLVM nor clang

Hi Krzysztof, Krzysztof Parzyszek wrote: > On 10/18/2016 4:29 PM, Nuno Lopes wrote: >> Even %a and %b might not be the same in "%a = freeze(%x), %b = >> freeze(%x)" (each freeze returns an arbitrary, but fixed, value). > > Assume that %x is known to be a poison value and have: > %a = freeze(%x) > %b = freeze(%x) > > Is %a == %a true? Yes, %a is always

I am creating a timeline plot, but running into a problem in positions where the values to plot are too close together to print the text without overlap. The simplest way I can think of to solve this (although there may be other ways?) is to create a new numeric vector whose values are as close as possible to the original vector, but spread out to a given minimum difference. For example, take

Hi, Back in 2016 an RFC titled "Killing Undef and Spreading Poison" [1] was posted on this mailing list, which generated a lot of discussion between different people. Later in 2017, a paper titled "Taming Undefined Behavior in LLVM" [2] was published, detailing the various concerns introduced in the RFC. There is also a patch proposal with an initial implementation

> On Oct 18, 2016, at 12:44 PM, Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > Nuno Lopes wrote: > >>> Okay; so the problem is that an instruction that is value-equivalent >>> to a poison value is not itself necessarily poison? >> >> Right. >> I think there were other examples, but I don't have them here

> Except for one bit, which was that it requires correct typing of load/store >> operations. That is, if you load an i32, it means you are loading a single >> 32-bit integer, not two 16-bit integers or something else. >> > > This is a valid concern because currently nor LLVM nor clang respect this >> property. Clang may pass several parameters as a single

Hi Alexandre, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Alexandre Isoard <alexandre.isoard at gmail.com> wrote: > Really interesting read. I am perplexed now, and am not even sure what is > the meaning of undef anymore. Welcome aboard. :) > Example (unrelated to your blog post, but still weird): > %x = sext i1 undef to i2 > > I understand that I can replace it by either of: >

> On Oct 19, 2016, at 7:06 AM, Alexandre Isoard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > freeze(poison) is different from undef today, in the sense that it is an instruction that produces

>> >> Here we are evaluating C2 before C. If the original loop never >> >> executed then we had never evaluated C2, while now we do. So we >> >> need >> >> to make sure there's no UB for branching on C2. Freeze ensures >> >> that >> >> so we would actually have 'if (freeze(C2))' instead. >> >> Note

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Nuno Lopes <nuno.lopes at ist.utl.pt> wrote: > >>>> So just to be clear (mainly so i can go back to letting y'all hash > this out), in value numbering: > >>>> 1. I can value number all freeze operations on the same operand to > the same value > >>>> *as long as* > >>>> 2. I replace all

Nuno, we still need some examples showing that the definition “Branching on poison is immediate-UB” is the best choice, so far we only have arguments against it (the one for loop-switching). Excerpts from the Paper [1] Here’s the example you give for GVN t = x + 1; if (t == y) { w = x + 1; foo(w); } Therefore, GVN can pick y as the

I'm still digesting the proposal in its entirety, but one point I want to call out here: On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 1:39 PM Friedman, Eli via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Instcombine currently transforms "memcpy(dst, src, 4)" to "load i32 src; > store i32 dst". I guess that's illegal under this model? How about the > related transform