search for: 0.0160

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 21 matches for "0.0160".

Did you mean: 0.0100
2007 Sep 18
0
[LLVMdev] 2.1 Pre-Release Available (testers needed)
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
2009 Feb 07
11
[LLVMdev] 2.5 Pre-release1 available for testing
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
2007 Sep 15
22
[LLVMdev] 2.1 Pre-Release Available (testers needed)
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
2013 Sep 09
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Compile-time and Execution-time analysis for the SCEV canonicalization
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
2013 Sep 09
4
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Compile-time and Execution-time analysis for the SCEV canonicalization
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. > >>
2013 Jan 07
1
posting a question in the R-help forum
Hello, I wanted to post this question below, on the R-help forum, but I'm not sure I succeeded because it said that I wasn't subscribed to the mailing list yet. Now I am subscribed, but will my question be accepted now automatically, or should I submit it again? Thanks in advance, Violet Swakman Hello everyone, I'm having trouble understanding my output from a linear mixed effects
2013 Sep 13
2
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Compile-time and Execution-time analysis for the SCEV canonicalization
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
2012 Dec 08
4
read.table()
Hi List, I have spent more than 30 minutes, but failed to read in this file using the read.table() function. I could not figure out how to fix the following error. Error in scan(file, what, nmax, sep, dec, quote, skip, nlines, na.strings, : line 1 did not have 6 elements Any help would be be appreciated. Thanks, Pradip Muhuri ####### below is the reproducible example xd1 <-
2008 Sep 19
1
Type I SS and Type III SS problem
Dear all: I m a newer on R.? I have some problem when I use?anova function.? I use anova function to get Type I SS results, but I also need to get Type III SS results.? However, in my code, there is some different between the result of Type I SS and Type III SS.? I don?t know why the ?seqe? factor disappeared in the result of Type III SS.? How can I do?? Here is my example and result.
2013 Sep 14
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Compile-time and Execution-time analysis for the SCEV canonicalization
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
2013 Sep 08
0
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Compile-time and Execution-time analysis for the SCEV canonicalization
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
2006 Jul 04
0
who can explain the difference between the R and SAS on the results of GLM
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:
2013 Sep 08
2
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Compile-time and Execution-time analysis for the SCEV canonicalization
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
2013 Sep 17
4
[LLVMdev] [Polly] Compile-time and Execution-time analysis for the SCEV canonicalization
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
2008 Apr 04
0
[LLVMdev] PATCH: Use size reduction -- wave1
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, heisenbug wrote: >> point taken. thanks! > > > Whatever I try I get something like this: > > ggreif$ cd MultiSource/ > ggreif$ make > make[2]: *** No rule to make target `Output/be.bc', needed by `Output/ > burg.linked.rbc'. Stop. > make[1]: *** [Burg/.makeall] Error 2 > make: *** [Applications/.makeall] Error 2 This is the
2005 Aug 12
8
Sortable Tables
I''ve put together a little library to provide sortable tables. It is heavily copied from http://www.kryogenix.org/code/browser/sorttable/ (mentioned in the Wish List) but has been modified to match the same form as the prototype.js library and add some new features. I still need to clean up some of the comments, but everything is pretty much working at this point. I posted an
2007 Dec 21
5
[LLVMdev] Status of Elsa->LLVM
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
2008 Apr 04
3
[LLVMdev] PATCH: Use size reduction -- wave1
On Apr 4, 8:06 pm, heisenbug <ggr... at gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 4, 7:51 pm, Török Edwin <edwinto... at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > heisenbug wrote: > > > On Apr 3, 10:53 pm, Gabor Greif <ga... at mac.com> wrote: > > > ... > > > >>> 3) Make sure that make check and some reasonable subset of llvm-test > > >>>
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
2008 Jan 28
0
[LLVMdev] 2.2 Prerelease available for testing
Target: FreeBSD 7.0-RC1 on amd64. autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: x86_64-unknown-freebsd7.0 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Target: amd64-undermydesk-freebsd Configured with: FreeBSD/amd64 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 4.2.1 20070719 [FreeBSD] [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release