# rlax | library built on top of JAX that exposes useful building | Reinforcement Learning library

## kandi X-RAY | rlax Summary

## kandi X-RAY | rlax Summary

RLax (pronounced "relax") is a library built on top of JAX that exposes useful building blocks for implementing reinforcement learning agents. Full documentation can be found at rlax.readthedocs.io.

### Support

### Quality

### Security

### License

### Reuse

### Top functions reviewed by kandi - BETA

- Computes the mean objective loss
- Compute weights and temperature loss
- Computes the KL loss for a given penalty
- Computes the KL loss and dual loss for the given constraints
- Calculate MPOO loss
- Creates a leaky vtrace output
- Performs leaky_vtrace
- Gets the generalized off - policy returns from the given values
- Calculate general off - policy returns from q and v
- Generate a PopArt
- Perform a PopArt operation
- Cross replicas
- Compute the KL loss for a given axis
- Create an EmaState
- Calculate the dpg loss between two arrays
- Deprecated
- Compute a TxPair between two bins
- Compose a two - hot pair
- Unnormalize the input array
- Replaces masked values with replacement
- Decorator for transform_targets
- Deprecated_update
- Check for documentation
- Get the module version
- Parse requirements file
- Recursively add all python files

## rlax Key Features

## rlax Examples and Code Snippets

## Community Discussions

Trending Discussions on rlax

QUESTION

I am compiling C for the MSP430. I'm wondering what the specific rules are for when sign extension is done for chars (or (u)int8_t) to the register size (16 bit) I found that sign extension will be done when the MSB of the destination operand will affect the correct result of the instruction and all succeeding instructions. However, this does not really explain it I think. For example when looking at this code:

...ANSWER

Answered 2020-Oct-15 at 14:06Let f(*a*, *b*,…) be a function of signed objects *a*, *b*,… Let *a*', *b*',… be the values of those objects reinterpreted as unsigned. If, for all values of *a*, *b*,… (in their signed types), the reinterpretation of f(*a*, *b*,…) as unsigned equals f(*a*', *b*',…), then no sign extension of *a*, *b*,… is needed when evaluating f.

This is evident because, if the condition is satisfied, then f(*a*', *b*',…) produces the bits required to represent f(*a*, *b*,…). However, it may be incomplete. We might have some f(*a*, *b*) that requires a sign extension of *a* but not of *b*, and that is not directly addressed by the above. However, it could be considered included in that f(*a*, *b*) may be expressed as a function g_{a}(*b*), and then the above tells us no sign extension of *b* is needed when evaluating g_{a}. If this is true for all g_{a}, then evaluating f(*a*, *b*) does not require sign extension of *b*.

Also, the fact that a sign extension is not needed does not imply a compiler will necessarily detect this and generate code without sign extension. A compiler might generate sign extension even if it is not necessary. I think this may be seen in `sint8fun`

; I would expect `(int8_t) (a+b)*2`

to be evaluable as an addition and a shift without sign extension. However, the compiler may be failing to account for the fact that the expression is converted to `int8_t`

by the `return`

. By itself, `(a+b)*2`

does require sign extension, as it could produce a negative `int`

result that it would not if the signs were not extended. It is only after the conversion to `int8_t`

that the result is then independent of sign extension.

Community Discussions, Code Snippets contain sources that include Stack Exchange Network

## Vulnerabilities

No vulnerabilities reported

## Install rlax

## Support

## Reuse Trending Solutions

Find, review, and download reusable Libraries, Code Snippets, Cloud APIs from over 650 million Knowledge Items

Find more librariesStay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for trending solutions and developer bootcamps

Share this Page