search for: 0.0040

Hi, LLVM 2.1-pre1 test results: Linux (SUSE) on x86 (P4) Release mode, but with assertions enabled LLVM srcdir == objdir # of expected passes 2250 # of expected failures 5 I ran the llvm-test suite on my desktop while I was also working on that PC, so don't put too much trust in the timing info. Especially during the "spiff" test the machine was swapping

LLVMers, The 2.5 pre-release is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.5/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. Please do the following: 1) Download/compile llvm source, and either compile llvm-gcc source or use llvm-gcc binary (please compile llvm-gcc with fortran if you can). 2) Run make check, send me the testrun.log 3) Run "make

On 09/09/2013 05:18 AM, Star Tan wrote: > > At 2013-09-09 05:52:35,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > >> On 09/08/2013 08:03 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Also, I wonder if your runs include the dependence analysis. If this is >> the case, the numbers are very good. Otherwise, 30% overhead seems still >> to be a little bit much. > I think

LLVMers, The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ I'm looking for members of the LLVM community to test the 2.1 release. There are 2 ways you can help: 1) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the appropriate llvm-gcc4.0 binary. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite (make TEST=nightly report). 2) Download

At 2013-09-09 13:07:07,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 09/09/2013 05:18 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> >> At 2013-09-09 05:52:35,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> >>> On 09/08/2013 08:03 PM, Star Tan wrote: >>> Also, I wonder if your runs include the dependence analysis. If this is >>> the

At 2013-09-09 05:52:35,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 09/08/2013 08:03 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> >> I have done some basic experiments about Polly canonicalization passes and I found the SCEV canonicalization has significant impact on both compile-time and execution-time performance. > >Interesting. > >>

Hello all, I have evaluated the compile-time and execution-time performance of Polly canonicalization passes. Details can be referred to http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity. There are four runs: pollyBasic (run 45): clang -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so pollyNoGenSCEV (run 44): clang -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so -mllvm -polly -mllvm -polly-codegen-scev

I performed an aov() analysis and got the following results: Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) block 1 0.0040 0.0040 0.3282 0.5672 Residuals 269 3.2766 0.0122 Can anyone tell me how to extract the F value column and Pr(>F) column from the summary output of aov analysis? Many thanks in advance, Liqing Eco. Evol. Biol. UCIrvine

Hi, I was hoping to clarify the exact behavior associated with this incantation: validate(fit.ols, method='cross', B=50) Output: index.orig training test optimism index.corrected n R-square 0.5612 0.5613 0.5171 0.0442 0.5170 50 MSE 1.3090 1.3086 1.3547 -0.0462 1.3552 50 Intercept 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0040 0.0040

Now, we come to more evaluations on http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity I mainly care about the compile-time and execution time impact for the following cases: pBasic (run 45): clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so pNoGenSCEV (run 44): clang -O3 -load LLVMPolly.so -polly-codegen-scev -polly -polly-optimizer=none -polly-code-generator=none pNoGenSCEV_nocan (run 47): same option

Hello at all, working with a dataset I try to optimize a non-linear function with constraint. test<-read.csv2("C:/Users/Herb/Desktop/Opti/NORM.csv") fkt<- function(x){ a<-c(0) s<-c(0) #Minimizing square error for(j in 1:107){ s<-(test[j,2] - (x[1] * test[j,3]) - (x[2] * test[j,4]) - (x[3]*test[j,5]) - (x[4]*test[j,6]) - (x[5]*test[j,7]))^2 a<- a+s} a<-as.double(a)

On 09/08/2013 08:03 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hello all, > > > I have done some basic experiments about Polly canonicalization passes and I found the SCEV canonicalization has significant impact on both compile-time and execution-time performance. Interesting. > Detailed results for SCEV and default canonicalization can be viewed on: http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/32 (or

Hello all, I have done some basic experiments about Polly canonicalization passes and I found the SCEV canonicalization has significant impact on both compile-time and execution-time performance. Detailed results for SCEV and default canonicalization can be viewed on: http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/32 (or 33, 34) *pNoGen with SCEV canonicalization (run 32): -O3 -Xclang -load

I'm a little further along now. I've started to put together a simple driver for Elsa and LLVM that I'm calling "ellsif" (cute name, I think it works). The file being compiled is a "printf" function. Here are timing results for optimized and unoptimized runs: [~/elsa/ellsif] dev% ./ellsif -v test/ofmt.i -time-actions Adding test/ofmt.i as a preprocessed C file

I tried to manually assign each of 3 arrays a unique TBAA node. But it does not seem to help: alias analysis still considers arrays as may-alias, which most likely prevents the desired optimization. Below is the sample code with TBAA metadata inserted. Could you please suggest what might be wrong with it? Many thanks, - D. marcusmae at M17xR4:~/forge/llvm$ opt -time-passes -enable-tbaa -tbaa

Dear all, Attached notunrolled.ll is a module containing reduction kernel. What I'm trying to do is to unroll it in such way, that partial reduction on unrolled iterations would be performed on register, and then stored to memory only once. Currently llvm's unroller together with all standard optimizations produce code, which stores value to memory after every unrolled iteration, which is

I am trying to improve my application's compile-time performance. On a given workload, I take 68 seconds to compile some code. If I disable the LLVM code generation (i.e. I will generate IR instructions, but skip the LLVM optimization and instruction selection steps) then my compile time drops to 3 seconds. If I write out the LLVM IR (just to prove that I am generating it) then my compile

f <- (structure(list(X = structure(96:97, .Label = c("119DAmm", "119DN", "119DNN", "119DO", "119DOC", "119Flow", "119Nit", "119ON", "119OPhos", "119OrgP", "119Phos", "119TKN", "119TOC", "148DAmm", "148DN", "148DNN", "148DO",

Dear all, It was a pleasure to meet you at Iowa State University. Two days ago I submitted two experimental packages to CRAN (hope it will be there soon): rindex: quick indexing of large objects (currently only character, see ?index) regtest: some first support for automated regression testing (heavily used in \dontshow{} section of ?index) With rindex you can for example i <-

I have a file for which clang-7 takes over 2 hours to compile with -O3. For the same file, clang-5 takes less than 2 minutes (which is also high IMHO). I will try to create a test case (but it is pretty simple, it only contains initializations of many arrays of structs where the structs are of the following form: struct Foo { EnumType1 e1; // there are 700+ enum labels std::string s1;