search for: 0.0132

Building the current release 2.7 branch on x86_64-apple-darwin10 with r81455 reverted, I get the following Polyhedron 2005 benchmark results (with no test failures)... ================================================================================ Date & Time : 7 Apr 2010 22:24:16 Test Name : llvm_gfortran_lin_p4 Compile Command : llvm-gfortran -ffast-math -funroll-loops -msse3

Dear All, I have got the limits for removing extreme values for each variables using following function . f=function(x){quantile(x, c(0.25, 0.75),na.rm = TRUE) - matrix(IQR(x,na.rm = TRUE) * c(1.5), nrow = 1) %*% c(-1, 1)} #Example: n <- 100 x1 <- runif(n) x2 <- runif(n) x3 <- x1 + x2 + runif(n)/10 x4 <- x1 + x2 + x3 + runif(n)/10 x5 <-

Dear all, I'm using R 2.8.1 under Windows Vista on a dual core 2,4 GhZ with 4 GB of RAM. I'm trying to reproduce a result out of "Analysis of Financial Time Series" by Ruey Tsay. In R I'm using the fGarch library. After fitting a ar(3)-garch(1,1)-model > model<-garchFit(~arma(3,0)+garch(1,1), analyse) I'm saving the results via > result<-model

On Apr 7, 2010, at 8:41 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > Building the current release 2.7 branch on x86_64-apple-darwin10 > with r81455 reverted, I get the following Polyhedron 2005 benchmark > results (with no test failures)... Very nice! A 14% speedup on a benchmark we don't tune for isn't bad. I imagine that there are several easy wins you could get on it if you were interested

On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 09:54:36PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Apr 7, 2010, at 8:41 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > > > Building the current release 2.7 branch on x86_64-apple-darwin10 > > with r81455 reverted, I get the following Polyhedron 2005 benchmark > > results (with no test failures)... > > Very nice! A 14% speedup on a benchmark we don't tune for

Windows 2000 . 5.00.2195 with Service Pack 1. R 1.5.1 Output from my split-split plot aov "alerted" me that I have done something wrong. I designed an experiment with all combinations of all levels of each treatment, but lost a little data (3 out of 192 plots). With the following data, I run the following model: > collim[c(1:6,187:192),c(1,3:6,9)] plot Litter Fert

Dear R users, I have a problem with something called "NaNs" in a nested mixed model. The background is that I have studied the number of insect nymphs emerging from replicated Willow genotypes in the field. I have 15 replicates each of 4 Willow genotypes belonging two 2 Willow species. Now I want to elucidate the effect of Willow genotype on the number of emerging nymphs. Previously I

[CCing Dale since this was his change, not mine] The change in 81455 fixes a compiler crash. It doesn't happen very often, but I can't imagine we would want to back that out. Fixing it would be a more reasonable solution. From a quick look at it, the problem is that gcc/config/darwin-c.c is registering va_opt for GC. When you build for Fortran, darwin-c.o is not linked so the GC gets

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 08:45:48AM -0700, Bob Wilson wrote: > [CCing Dale since this was his change, not mine] > > The change in 81455 fixes a compiler crash. It doesn't happen very often, but I can't imagine we would want to back that out. Fixing it would be a more reasonable solution. From a quick look at it, the problem is that gcc/config/darwin-c.c is registering va_opt

Dear all, I would like to carry out a stepwise regression using the function step. If I use either ~ (A + B + C + D)^4 or explicitly all main effects and interactions for the scope argument, the procedure only considers the four main effects for addition or elimination in each iteration step. What did I do wrong? I'm using R version 1.1.1 on Windows NT. (I'm sorry if this is a stupid

Dear friends, I used R and SAS to analyze my data through generalized linear model, and there is some difference between them. Results from R: glm(formula = snail ~ grass + gheight + humidity + altitude + soiltemr + airtemr, family = Gamma) Deviance Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -1.23873 -0.41123 -0.08703 0.24339 1.21435 Coefficients:

On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:45 AMPDT, Bob Wilson wrote: > [CCing Dale since this was his change, not mine] > > The change in 81455 fixes a compiler crash. It doesn't happen very often, but I can't imagine we would want to back that out. Fixing it would be a more reasonable solution. From a quick look at it, the problem is that gcc/config/darwin-c.c is registering va_opt for GC.

Hello, I am hoping for some advice regarding warning/error messages I received when running a Cox regression # message 1 - obtained while creating a plot of residuals > plot (NV.zph, main = "groupNUSM - UNFIT", var= 'groupNUSM') Warning messages: 1: In approx(xx, xtime, seq(min(xx), max(xx), length.out = 17)[2 * : collapsing to unique 'x' values 2: In

Hi, i've been trying to apply the lme apprach to growth curves of children, but lme keeps running for ever and ever as soon as I use a reasonable basis. First Example: Data are 39 boys from the Berkeley growth study, each one measured 31 times at the ages of 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 8.50 9.00 9.50 10.00 10.50 11.00 11.50 12.00 12.50 13.00 13.50

On 23.11.2012, at 15:12, john skaller <skaller at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > On 23/11/2012, at 5:46 PM, Sean Silva wrote: > >> Adding LLVMdev, since this is intimately related to the optimization passes. >> >>> I think this is roughly because some function level optimisations are >>> worse than O(N) in the number of instructions. >>

List, I'm working on fitting a logistic model for a well known dataset (which is given below in case anyone wants to try to reproduce). I used both R and SAS to fit the model and have some differences in the parameter estimates. I'm wondering if R calculates the ML estimates differently. I'm making NO accusations as to which program is "right or wrong". That is not the

Target: FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE on i386 autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: i386-unknown-freebsd6.2 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 3.4.6 [FreeBSD] 20060305 [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release build. llvm-gcc 4.2 from source.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:42:18PM -0700, Tanya Lattner wrote: > The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing: > http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/ > > [...] > > 2) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the llvm-gcc4.0 source. > Compile everything. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite > (make TEST=nightly report). > > Send

LLVMers, The 2.2 prerelease is now available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.2/ If anyone can help test this release, I ask that you do the following: 1) Build llvm and llvm-gcc (or use a binary). You may build release (default) or debug. You may pick llvm-gcc-4.0, llvm-gcc-4.2, or both. 2) Run 'make check'. 3) In llvm-test, run 'make TEST=nightly report'. 4) When

Hi all, I've started looking at the GlobalMerge pass, enabled by default on ARM and AArch64. I think we should reconsider that, at least for AArch64. As is, the pass just merges all globals together, in groups of 4KB (AArch64, 128B on ARM). At the time it was enabled, the general thinking was "it's almost free, it doesn't affect performance much, we might as well use it".