similar to: Error: (subscript) logical subscript too long

Dear all, I would like to fit a non-linear model of the form: y=g*x/(a+b*x) with nls(). However this model is somehow overparameterized and I get the error message about singular gradient matrix at initial parameter estimates. What I am interested in is to make inference about parameters b and g, so this has to be taken into account in the model formulation. What options do I have? Also, how is

Hello, I am getting the following error while generating code for arm using llc for one of the specint2000 benchmark. Though same works for x86 target. Command => llc -march=arm 186.crafty/186.crafty.rel.bc -o 186.crafty/186.crafty.m5arm.s Error => LLVM ERROR: Couldn't allocate output reg for constraint '{cx}'! Have anyone seen this before? Is there a work around for this?

Thanks for your reply. I have a normal (../configure --enable-profiling --disable-optimized --enable-assertions) llvm debug+profile+assert build. I am generating llvm-bitcode using following commands. llvm-gcc -DLINUX_i386 -DSPEC_CPU2000 -O3 -emit-llvm 186.crafty/src/valid.c -c -o 186.crafty/src/valid.bc --- llvm-link 186.crafty/src/*.bc -o 186.crafty/186.crafty.rel.bc and finally: llc

Hello > Command => llc -march=arm 186.crafty/186.crafty.rel.bc -o > 186.crafty/186.crafty.m5arm.s > Error =>  LLVM ERROR: Couldn't allocate output reg for constraint '{cx}'! > > Have anyone seen this before? It seems you're feeding x86-specific LLVM IR to arm backend. Please don't do that. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics

Hi all, I am about to install a Samba server at a local school, and i need some advice and/or experience from others who have worked on a installation of that type/size. My plan is to roll-out a Samba server (of course), with LDAP back-end, and a number of printer queue's via CUPS. There will be aprox. 1000 user accounts, mostly students. The school has asked for a solution that would

Hi, I have looked at the LLVM code generation quality using small test cases and in general it is better than I thought and in some cases better than gcc. However, there are still some gap in SPEC performance. I have not looked at the root cause of those gaps. Anyone who cares about LLVM performance need to take this seriously. For fair comparison, I used -fno-strict-aliasing in gcc to turn off

Hello, I'd like to introduce myself, my company, and our upcoming use of LLVM. My name is John Reagan. I've been working on compilers and assemblers since 1983 (yes, 31 years). Most of that time was spent on compilers for VAX/VMS (later renamed to OpenVMS), then OpenVMS on Alpha, and OpenVMS on Itanium. I've also worked with the HP NonStop platform and was directly involved

On 11/9/15 5:49 PM, John Reagan wrote: > That would be fine with me. I just don't want some new visitor to > come along and see "CMake only" and get discouraged and leave. Well, it is going to be "CMake only". Anyone who depends on autotools is going to be stuck on whatever the last revision is that we shipped with it. And I really don't see it being feasible

Thanks David. Unfortunately many of us cannot use GPL v3 gcc so it's hard for us to investigate this. One question, can you tell if gcc is inlining significantly more than llvm? We have reports that this is one of the issue plaguing eon performance. There are also some relatively well known spec optimizations that we haven't implemented. e.g.

Yes. We currently build LLVM 3.4.2 on our OpenVMS Itanium box with an older EDG/Intel C++03 compiler to create legacy cross-compilers to our OpenVMS x86 box (well, VirtualBox). We do have a few tweaks to the relocations to access static data always through the GOT (including CodeGen's static data). Our linker sees references to code (which might be in 64-bit space) and creates trampolines

Hello, Anyone who knows a fast and accurate algorithm for generating draws from an underdispersed Poisson distribution. Or even better, if there is a package containing such an implementation. Thanks Rene

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of JF > Bastien via llvm-dev > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 12:25 PM > To: John Reagan > Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Coding Standards: "prefer `int` for, regular > arithmetic, use `unsigned` only for bitmask and when you, intend to

Please review the properties of an address space which are configurable via the data layout.  For example, bitwidth is one of those parameters.  If that parameter space covers your needs, then you do not need LLVM side support. Philip On 7/30/19 2:59 PM, Amy Huang wrote: > Thanks for the info-- > It seems like the way to do this is for clang to use address spaces to > represent

Hi all! I try to estimate a statistic of the form: (x1-x2)/(y1-y2), where x1,x2,y1,y2 represent variable means, so each has an estimate and standard error associated with it. How is it possible to estimate the mean and the variance of this ratio? Thank you! [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi All, I have a strange problem with passwords, stored in LDAP. When i try to logon as a user with the correct password, access is denied and the log says check_ntlm_password: Authentication for user [administrator] -> [administrator] FAILED with error NT_STATUS_NO_SUCH_USER When i try to logon a user with incorrect password, access is (of course) denied, but the log now says

As one of the OS' without current CMake support, I'm closely watching this discussion. We currently have LLVM 3.4.2 hosted on OpenVMS Itanium (as a host only, x86 target) using configure/make with little hassle. We plan to port CMake to OpenVMS, but that has been trickier than you'd think (others have tried, I haven't found anybody who has done it). Looks like I'll want to

Hi, I,m running Samba 3.0.1-2 on a RedHat 9.0 box, and would like to use the "User Manager for Domains" tool to control users and groups. But i can't get it to work proberly. Deleting users and groups, change group membership on users works fine, but adding users and groups does not. I have tried to find out how well the "User Manager for Domains" is supported in

> On Nov 9, 2015, at 3:21 PM, Jonathan Roelofs via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On 11/9/15 4:02 PM, John Reagan via llvm-dev wrote: >> Keeping the documentation with large warnings is sufficient. It >> would at least let somebody then grab an older version's makefiles if >> they are so inclined/interested. I have no problem

That is basically what we do today to provide mixed sized pointers with our legacy frontends. They generate IR to our old code generator which has ADDR32 and ADDR64 datatypes. We use a 64-bit address data layout and then typecast the 32-bit forms to/from the underlying 64-bit addresses. I have been warned that such rampant typecasting might interfere with certain optimizations or TBAA data. We

I'm not sure if they are doing an x86 to IA64 cross compile, but in any event I'm going to guess they may need an ancient version to avoid any C++11 dependencies. In terms of IA64 compilers you have afaik 3 choices HP compiler, Open64 and Intel? (Does gcc still support it and how up-to-date or EOL is the Intel compiler IA64 support?) I really hope nobody decides not to move to a more