search for: p_2

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 23 matches for "p_2".

Did you mean: p2
2013 Jul 29
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Analysis of the expensive compile-time overhead of Polly Dependence pass
On 07/29/2013 09:15 AM, Sven Verdoolaege wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 07:37:14AM -0700, Tobias Grosser wrote: >> On 07/29/2013 03:18 AM, Sven Verdoolaege wrote: >>> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 04:42:25PM -0700, Tobias Grosser wrote: >>>> Sven: In terms of making the behaviour of isl easier to understand, >>>> it may make sense to fail/assert in case
2013 Jul 31
1
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Analysis of the expensive compile-time overhead of Polly Dependence pass
...for (ctr = 0; ctr < 8; ctr++) { x1 = input[i*64 + ctr*8 + 1] ; x0 = input[i*64 + ctr*8 + 0] ; input[i*64 + ctr*8 + 0] = x0 - x1; input[i*64 + ctr*8 + 1] = x0 + x1; input[i*64 + ctr*8 + 2] = x0 * x1; } Without this patch file, Polly would produce the Context as follows: Context: [p_0, p_1, p_2] -> { : p_0 >= -9223372036854775808 and p_0 <= 9223372036854775807 and p_1 >= -9223372036854775808 and p_1 <= 9223372036854775807 and p_2 >= -9223372036854775808 and p_2 <= 9223372036854775807 } p0: {0,+,128}<%for.cond2.preheader> p1: {2,+,128}<%for.cond2.preheader>...
2013 Jul 26
6
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Analysis of the expensive compile-time overhead of Polly Dependence pass
Hi Sebastian, Recently, I found the "Polly - Calculate dependences" pass would lead to significant compile-time overhead when compiling some loop-intensive source code. Tobias told me you found similar problem as follows: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14240 My evaluation shows that "Polly - Calculate dependences" pass consumes 96.4% of total compile-time overhead
2009 Aug 04
3
Accuracy (PR#13867)
Full_Name: Manuel Luethi Version: 2.9.1 OS: Windows XP Submission from: (NULL) (129.132.128.136) Hi I created the following vectors: p_1=c(0.2,0.2,0.2,0.2,0.1,0.25,0.4,0.1,0.25,0.4,0.1,0.25,0.4,0.1,0.25,0.4,0.2,0.5,0.8,0.2,0.5,0.8,0.2,0.5,0.8,0.2,0.5,0.8) p_2=c(0,0,0,0,0.5,0.5,0.5,0.5,0.5,0.5,0.5,0.5,0.5,0.5,0.5,0.5,0.4,0.25,0.1,0.4,0.25,0.1,0.4,0.25,0.1,0.4,0.25,0.1) As these are probabilities, I calculated the remainder as p_3=1-p_1-p_2 There the values which ought to be 0.1 were lateron not recognised by p_3==0.1, but only if I used p_3 <= 0.1....
2013 Jul 26
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Analysis of the expensive compile-time overhead of Polly Dependence pass
...input[i*64 + ctr*8 + 0] = x0 - x1; input[i*64 + ctr*8 + 1] = x0 + x1; input[i*64 + ctr*8 + 2] = x0 * x1; } // SCoP end bar(); // Unknown function call stops further expansion of SCoP } } Which is translated to the following scop: Context: [p_0, p_1, p_2] -> { : p_0 >= -2147483648 and p_0 <= 2147483647 and p_1 >= -2147483648 and p_1 <= 2147483647 and p_2 >= -2147483648 and p_2 <= 2147483647 } p_0: {0,+,128}<%for.cond2.preheader> p_1: {2,+,128}<%for.cond2.preheader> p_2: {4,+,128}<%for.cond2.preh...
2013 Jul 26
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Analysis of the expensive compile-time overhead of Polly Dependence pass
...nput[i*64 + ctr*8 + 1] = x0 + x1; > input[i*64 + ctr*8 + 2] = x0 * x1; > } > // SCoP end > > bar(); // Unknown function call stops further expansion of SCoP > } >} > >Which is translated to the following scop: > > Context: > [p_0, p_1, p_2] -> { : p_0 >= -2147483648 and p_0 <= 2147483647 >and p_1 >= -2147483648 and p_1 <= 2147483647 and p_2 >= -2147483648 and >p_2 <= 2147483647 } > p_0: {0,+,128}<%for.cond2.preheader> > p_1: {2,+,128}<%for.cond2.preheader> > p_2: {4,+,128...
2013 Jul 28
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Analysis of the expensive compile-time overhead of Polly Dependence pass
...o, but I need your > help on handling some problems about ISL and SCEV. I copied the list as the discussion may be helpful for others. @Sven, no need to read all. Just search for your name. [..] >>The interesting observation is, that Polly introduces three parameters >>(p_0, p_1, p_2) for this SCoP, even though in the C source code only the >>variable 'i' is SCoP invariant. However, due to the way >>SCEVExpr(essions) in LLVM are nested, Polly sees three scop-invariant >>SCEVExpr(essions) which are all translated into independent parameters. >>How...
2011 Apr 20
4
[LLVMdev] GEP vs IntToPtr/PtrToInt
...int, then if we inttoptr i to a point p, how should I decide which pointer value the 'p' forms? If those p_j are ptrtoint to a i_j, and the computation for i is i = i_0 + i_1 + ... i_n, does it mean we can take either p_j as a base pointer, and other int variables its offset, say we take p_2 as the base pointer, and the p from i points to p_2 + (i_0 + i_1 + i_3 + .. i_n) ? So in the transformation example, the result is different when we take %196 or %193 as a base pointer. For alias-analysis, we may say the p can point to a memory any of the p_j points to. But if we conside...
2004 May 03
0
multinomial regresion, nls
Hi, Does R have any functions implementing such multinomial regression: (S_t^A,S_t^B)~MN(N_t-Y_{t-1},P_t^A,P_t^B) where MN(n,p_1,p_2) is multinomial distribution with parameters n, p_1, p_2. Here P_t^A and P_t^B are nonlinear functions from predictor variables and parameters which need to be estimated. Here A and B are used for notation, they are not parameters. My second question is about nls capabilities. Can I use lagged re...
2008 Aug 19
1
Polynomial regression help
I have a simple X, Y data frame that I am trying to run regression analysis on. The linear regression looks great, but when I use lm(formula = y ~ poly(x, degree = 5)) I get the same coeffecients. So for example if I use degree =3 my formula would look like y = 4.2 x^3 + 3.2x^2 + 2.1x + 1.0 and my degree 5 would look like y = 6.5x^5+ 5.4x^4 + 4.2 x^3 + 3.2x^2 + 2.1x + 1.0, which doesn't make
2011 Apr 20
0
[LLVMdev] GEP vs IntToPtr/PtrToInt
...gt; to a point p, how should I decide which pointer value the 'p' forms? > > If those p_j are ptrtoint to a i_j, and the computation for i is i = > i_0 + i_1 + ... i_n, does it mean >  we can take either p_j as a base pointer, and other int variables > its offset, say we take p_2 as the base pointer, and the p from i > points to >       p_2 + (i_0 + i_1 + i_3 + .. i_n) >  ? > > So in the transformation example, the result is different when we take > %196 or %193 as a base pointer. > > For alias-analysis, we may say the p can point to a memory any of...
2011 Sep 21
3
Quelplot
Hi all, Does anyone have an R implementation of the queplot (K.?M. Goldberg and B.?Iglewicz. Bivariate extensions of the boxplot. Technometrics, 34(3):pp. 307?320, 1992)? I'm struggling with the estimation of the asymmetry parameters. Hadley -- Assistant Professor / Dobelman Family Junior Chair Department of Statistics / Rice University http://had.co.nz/
2011 Apr 20
0
[LLVMdev] GEP vs IntToPtr/PtrToInt
...; to a point p, how should I decide which pointer value the 'p' forms? > > If those p_j are ptrtoint to a i_j, and the computation for i is i = > i_0 + i_1 + ... i_n, does it mean > we can take either p_j as a base pointer, and other int variables > its offset, say we take p_2 as the base pointer, and the p from i > points to > p_2 + (i_0 + i_1 + i_3 + .. i_n) > ? So, in your example, if you do: i1 = ptrtoint p1; i2 = ptrtoint p2; ... in = ptrtoint pn; i = i1 + i2 ... + in; p = inttoptr i; ..., then p can point to any memory object p1, p2, ... pn....
2011 Apr 20
2
[LLVMdev] GEP vs IntToPtr/PtrToInt
...w should I decide which pointer value the 'p' forms? >> >> If those p_j are ptrtoint to a i_j, and the computation for i is i = >> i_0 + i_1 + ... i_n, does it mean >>  we can take either p_j as a base pointer, and other int variables >> its offset, say we take p_2 as the base pointer, and the p from i >> points to >>       p_2 + (i_0 + i_1 + i_3 + .. i_n) >>  ? >> >> So in the transformation example, the result is different when we take >> %196 or %193 as a base pointer. >> >> For alias-analysis, we may say the...
2012 Mar 16
2
how to speed up the inefficient code
hi, i'm really in trouble to simulate some experiment. that is, it takes too much time to process the following code. following is short example, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- p<-data.frame(a=rnorm(10),b=rnorm(10),c=rnorm(10),d=rnorm(10)) test<-data.frame(a=rnorm(1),b=rnorm(1),c=rnorm(1),d=rnorm(1))
2011 Apr 20
0
[LLVMdev] GEP vs IntToPtr/PtrToInt
...ich pointer value the 'p' forms? >>> >>> If those p_j are ptrtoint to a i_j, and the computation for i is i = >>> i_0 + i_1 + ... i_n, does it mean >>>  we can take either p_j as a base pointer, and other int variables >>> its offset, say we take p_2 as the base pointer, and the p from i >>> points to >>>       p_2 + (i_0 + i_1 + i_3 + .. i_n) >>>  ? >>> >>> So in the transformation example, the result is different when we take >>> %196 or %193 as a base pointer. >>> >>> Fo...
2011 Apr 05
0
[LLVMdev] GEP vs IntToPtr/PtrToInt
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:10 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > On 4/4/2011 6:45 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Arushi Aggarwal<arushi987 at gmail.com> >>  wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> Is it correct to convert, >>>>   %196 = load i32* %195, align 8                
2013 Nov 19
1
Generación de números aleatorios. Mixtura k-puntos
Saludo cordial para cada uno. Les pido ayuda para generar números aleatorios de una mixtura k-puntos. Sabemos que la función de distribución F es una mixtura k-puntos si es de la forma F(x) = p_1 F_1(x) + p_2 F_2(x) + … + p_k F_k(x), donde F_j es una función de distribución de probabilidad, p_j > 0 y suma(p_j) = 1, para j = 1, 2, …, k. En mi caso particular F es la suavización de la función de probabilidad discreta {p_j} mediante kernel gamma. En el siguiente código F es la función Keg: # Distr...
2011 Apr 20
1
[LLVMdev] GEP vs IntToPtr/PtrToInt
...e 'p' forms? >>>> >>>> If those p_j are ptrtoint to a i_j, and the computation for i is i = >>>> i_0 + i_1 + ... i_n, does it mean >>>>  we can take either p_j as a base pointer, and other int variables >>>> its offset, say we take p_2 as the base pointer, and the p from i >>>> points to >>>>       p_2 + (i_0 + i_1 + i_3 + .. i_n) >>>>  ? >>>> >>>> So in the transformation example, the result is different when we take >>>> %196 or %193 as a base pointer. >...
2011 Apr 04
2
[LLVMdev] GEP vs IntToPtr/PtrToInt
On 4/4/2011 6:45 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Arushi Aggarwal<arushi987 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> Is it correct to convert, >>> %196 = load i32* %195, align 8 ;<i32> [#uses=1] >>> %197 = zext i32 %196 to i64 ;<i64> [#uses=1] >>> %198 =