search for: 0.0240

>> GCC (4.5.2, Windows build from CodeSourcery) - With -O0: 110ms, with -O2: 215ms >> Clang/LLVM (Release mode, LLVM git hash 7f5714f4..., clang git hash >> 9d9cf5...) - With -O0: 110ms, with -O2: 640ms Hi Matt, I only see 2x slowdown on my machine (consistently, O2 and O3), but that's still bad. If you compile to IR then pass "opt -time-passes" you can get a

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

Hello: In the example below (or for a censored data) using survfit.coxph, can anyone point me to a link or a pdf as to how the probabilities appearing in bold under "summary(pred$surv)" are calculated? Do these represent acumulative probability distribution in time (not including censored time)? Thanks very much, parmee *fit <- coxph(Surv(futime, fustat) ~ age, data = ovarian)*

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",

Thanks, Matt. This is great information. Sounds like Chandler is looking into the details of what's going on. -Jim On Jul 19, 2012, at 3:55 PM, Matt Fischer <mattfischer84 at gmail.com> wrote: > I've been doing some profiling of LLVM on our codebase, to see how it > stacks up to the existing GCC build that we do. The primary thing I'm > focusing on at the moment is

On 28 June 2013 19:45, Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at apple.com> wrote: > Given this tradeoff I think we want to tend towards false positives (over > false negatives) strictly as a matter of compiler quality. > False hits are not binary, but (at least) two-dimensional. You can't say it's better to have any amount of false positives than any amount of false negatives

Hi R users: What is the difference between in the computation of the diag of the "hat" matrix in: "lm.influence" and the matrix operations with "solve()" and "t()"? I mean, this is my X matrix x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 [1,] 0.297 0.310 0.290 0.220 0.1560 [2,] 0.360 0.390 0.369 0.297 0.2050 [3,] 0.075 0.058 0.047 0.034 0.0230 [4,] 0.114 0.100

I've been doing some profiling of LLVM on our codebase, to see how it stacks up to the existing GCC build that we do. The primary thing I'm focusing on at the moment is build speed, and in this regard LLVM seems to be pretty all over the map. On some files it seems to go quite a bit faster than GCC, and on others it's slower, leading to an aggregate build time for our repository

I should describe the cost of false negatives and false positives, since I think it matters for how this problem is approached. False negatives mean we miss a real regression --- we don’t want that. False positives mean somebody has to spend some time looking at and reproducing the regression when there is not one --- bad too. Given this tradeoff I think we want to tend towards false positives

On 06/28/2013 01:19 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 28 June 2013 19:45, Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at apple.com> > wrote: > >> Given this tradeoff I think we want to tend towards false positives >> (over false negatives) strictly as a matter of compiler quality. >> > > False hits are not binary, but (at least) two-dimensional. You can't > say it's

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

I am using the coxph, survfit and summary.survfit functions to calculate an estimate of predicted survival with confidence interval for future patients based on the survival distribution of an existing cohort of subjects. I am trying to understand the calculation and interpretation of the std.err and confidence intervals printed by the summary.survfit function. Using the default confidence

Hello everyone, I am searching for a covariate selection procedure in a cox model formulated as a counting process. I use intervals, my formula looks like coxph(Surv(start,stop,status)~ x1+x2+...+cluster(id),robust=T) where id is a country code (I study occurence of civil wars from 1962 to 1997). I'd like something not based on p-values, since they have several flaws for this purpose. I turned

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.

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

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

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