search for: 0.0140

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 22 matches for "0.0140".

Did you mean: 0.0040
2004 Jun 02
1
Manova and contrasts
Hi R-users I'm trying to do multivariate analysis of variance of a experiment with 3 treatments, 2 variables and 5 replicates. The procedure adopted in SAS is as follow, but I'm having difficulty in to implement the contrasts for comparison of all treatments in R. I have already read manuals and other materials about manova in R, but nothing about specific contrasts were found in them,
2010 Apr 08
3
[LLVMdev] darwin llvm-gfortran Polyhedron 2005 results
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
2008 May 06
4
General Plotting Question
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",
2008 Mar 26
1
cbind and mean by week
Hi: I have been able to finally crunch my data by importing it by week(thank you all for your help),but here we go again.. Now I'am trying to do it for the the whole year. Since the dataset is huge I'm only making a 3 weeks dataframe. - I want to get the mean of pd by week - I want to count the number of days by week and bind it to the existing dataframe(x) - I want to remove the
2010 Apr 08
0
[LLVMdev] darwin llvm-gfortran Polyhedron 2005 results
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
2010 Sep 20
1
[LLVMdev] Polyhedron 2005 regressions
Comparing the Polyhedron 2005 benchmark results for gfortran from llvm-gcc-4.2 of April 7th, 2010 and September 18th, 2010 (from the rc2 2.8 release branch), we seem to be regressing in performance for this release.... ================================================================================ Date & Time : 7 Apr 2010 22:24:16 Test Name : llvm_gfortran_lin_p4 Compile Command :
2010 Apr 08
3
[LLVMdev] darwin llvm-gfortran Polyhedron 2005 results
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
2010 Apr 08
0
[LLVMdev] darwin llvm-gfortran Polyhedron 2005 results
[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
2010 Apr 08
1
[LLVMdev] darwin llvm-gfortran Polyhedron 2005 results
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
2012 Feb 19
1
coxme: model simplification using LR-test?
Hi I'm encountering some problems with coxme My data: I'm looking at the survival of animals in an experiment with 3 treatments, which came from 4 different populations, two of which were infected with a parasite and two of which were not. I'm interested if infected animals differe from uninfected ones across treatments. Factor 1: treatment (3 levels) Factor 2: infection state
2010 Apr 08
2
[LLVMdev] darwin llvm-gfortran Polyhedron 2005 results
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.
2008 Jan 04
1
GLMMs fitted with lmer (R) & glimmix (SAS)
I'm fitting generalized linear mixed models to using several fixed effects (main effects and a couple of interactions) and a grouping factor (site) to explain the variation in a dichotomous response variable (family=binomial). I wanted to compare the output I obtained using PROC GLIMMIX in SAS with that obtained using lmer in R (version 2.6.1 in Windows). When using lmer I'm specifying
2011 Feb 21
0
[LLVMdev] llvm-gcc4.2 bootstrap broken?
On Feb 19, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: > Is anyone able to bootstrap llvm-gcc42 svn on x86_64-apple-darwin10? Currently it is > failing here with... It was broken. I think I've fixed it in reverting 125960. -eric
2011 Feb 22
1
[LLVMdev] llvm-gcc4.2 bootstrap broken?
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 03:58:19PM -0800, Eric Christopher wrote: > > On Feb 19, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: > > > Is anyone able to bootstrap llvm-gcc42 svn on x86_64-apple-darwin10? Currently it is > > failing here with... > > It was broken. I think I've fixed it in reverting 125960. > > -eric Eric, The llvm-gcc42 bootstrap is fixed in
1997 Oct 17
1
R-beta: more model.matrix
I am trying to show some techniques to my graduate regression class. The textbook mentioned using bootstrap samples of regression coefficients for assessing variability. I decided to show them reasonably effective ways of doing the resampling. The following is a function I wrote to create bootstrap samples of coefficients from a fitted linear regression model. bsCoefSample <- ##
2011 Feb 19
2
[LLVMdev] llvm-gcc4.2 bootstrap broken?
Is anyone able to bootstrap llvm-gcc42 svn on x86_64-apple-darwin10? Currently it is failing here with... /sw/src/fink.build/llvm-gcc42-2.9-0/llvm_gcc42_objdir/./prev-gcc/xgcc -B/sw/src/fink.build/llvm-gcc42-2.9-0/llvm_gcc42_objdir/./prev-gcc/ -B/sw/lib/llvm-gcc-4.2/x86_64-apple-darwin10/bin/ -c -g -O2 -mdynamic-no-pic -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
2012 Nov 23
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] costing optimisations
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. >>
2008 Feb 03
0
[LLVMdev] 2.2 Prerelease available for testing
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.
2007 Sep 18
0
[LLVMdev] 2.1 Pre-Release Available (testers needed)
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
2015 Feb 26
5
[LLVMdev] [RFC] AArch64: Should we disable GlobalMerge?
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".