similar to: how to derive 5 level nested anova results table

I am running 1.3.1 on a Windows (NT 4.0) machine. I've fit a nonlinear model intended to predict crop yield from nutrient information, and want to use the profile function. If I type say, profile(simparj.fm) I get the following error message: "Error in prof$getProfile(): number of iterations exceeded maximum of 5.25515e-308" I used the profiler function to profile simparj,fm step

Hi! I have 2 data.frames: "fish" and "popn": >fish xloc yloc id birth size weight energy gonad 20 15 15 54 -60 107.9 63.0 15952.9 8.0 21 15 15 32 -60 105.1 61.4 15538.8 7.8 91 4 43 96 -60 118.9 69.4 17573.2 8.8 71 32 4 64 -60 121.6 71.0 17976.0 9.0 34 2 64 20 -60 116.2 67.9 17173.0 8.6 95 6 20 58 -60 106.5

Hi, We are currently in the process of installing an Asterisk box between our legacy PBX (NEC Xen Master) and the Telco (Telstra). Originally the PBX was connected to the telco via 8x BRIs. Our new Asterisk box has been setup with 2 OpenVox B800P cards. Each card has the 4 ports in TE mode and 4 ports in NT mode. The NEC PBX is connected to the Asterisk boxes NT ports and the Asterisk box is

Dear all, I'm trying to perform a principal components analysis of a sample of individuals, and to plot it in 3D, assigning different colors according to the population each individual belongs to. Given that the matrix I have to use for the PCA cannot contain cualitative variables (here, the population of origin), I have no idea how can I do this in R. ANy help? Thanks in advance

hello, i try to plot 3 graphs which have the same x.axis underneath each other. i'd like the plots to be aligned without margings between the boxes and draw a single x axis beneath the lowest plot. i managed to get the alignment by setting par(mar), but the middle box is stretched and i cant't figure out how to get around this. par(pin) was my guess, but this doesn't do the job

dear R-friends, i`ve got a large dataset of vegetation-samples with about 500 variables(=species) in the following format: 1 spec1 1 spec23 1 spec54 1 spec63 2 spec1 2 spec2 2 spec253 2 spec300 2 spec423 3 spec20 3 spec88 3 spec121 3 spec200 3 spec450 . . this means: sample 1 (grassland) with the species (=spec) 1, 23, 54, 63 is it possible to get a following data-structure for further

Hi all, Consider this ARM assembly code of a C function: 00008124 <foo>: 8124: push {r4, r6, r7, lr} 8126: add r7, sp, #8 8128: mov r4, r0 812a: ldrsb.w r0, [r2] 812e: cmp r0, #1 8130: itt lt 8132: movlt r0, #85 ;

> On Apr 27, 2018, at 7:48 AM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Consider this ARM assembly code of a C function: > > 00008124 <foo>: > 8124: push {r4, r6, r7, lr} > 8126: add r7, sp, #8 > 8128: mov r4, r0 > 812a: ldrsb.w

Thank you all for taking a look at this. I pasted the C source then deleted it because I was afraid that it was too long to read... Here's the code of *foo*. Its real name is *verifyPIN*. The variable *bar* is *userPin*. int *verifyPIN*(char **userPin*, char *cardPin, int *cpt) { int i; int status; int diff; if (*cpt > 0) { status = 0x55; diff = 0x55; for (i = 0; i

As Adrian said, we'd need to see the source of foo() to assess what the location-list for bar ought to be. Without actually going to look, I would guess that 'poplt' is considered a conditional move, therefore r4's contents are not guaranteed after it executes (i.e. it is a clobber). If one operand of 'poplt' is 'pc' then of course it is also a conditional indirect

Could you file a bug report about this (bugs.llvm.org <http://bugs.llvm.org/>)? If you don't have an account on bugzilla, I'd be happy to file one for you. Please provide exact instructions to reproduce the issue including any compilation flags. thanks, vedant > On May 7, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > Has

Hello, Has anyone taken a look at this bug? I really want to fix this, but as Paul pointed out, this requires a lot of care... Thank you for your help Son Tuan Vu On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you all for taking a look at this. I pasted the C source then > deleted it because I was afraid that it was too long to read...