search for: 0.0400

Hi guys,   I have two data sets of prices: endprice0, endprice1   I use the Wilcox test:   wilcox.test(endprice0, endprice1, paired = TRUE, alternative = "two.sided",  conf.int = T, conf.level = 0.9)   The result is with V = 1819, p-value = 0.8812.   Then I calculated the z-value of the test: z-value = -2.661263. The corresponding p-value is: p-value = 0.003892, which is different from

G'Day Tanya, Is it too late to bring in the following patches to fix some major brokenness in the AuroraUX tool chain for 2.6? http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp?r1=84468&r2=84469&view=diff&pathrev=84469 http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp?r1=84265&r2=84266&view=diff&pathrev=84266

Hi Tanya, > 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects > directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a > pre-compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. I compiled llvm and llvm-gcc with separate objects directories. Platform is x86_64-linux-gnu. > 2) Run make check, report any failures (FAIL or unexpected pass). Note > that you need to

On Oct 20, 2009, at 6:02 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Tanya, > >> 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects >> directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a pre- >> compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. > > I compiled llvm and llvm-gcc with separate objects directories. > Platform is x86_64-linux-gnu. > Ok.

LLVMers, 2.6 pre-release2 is ready to be tested by the community. http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.6/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. To test llvm-gcc: 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a pre- compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. 2) Run make check,

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

I just upgraded our optimizer to LLVM 3.0 from 2.8 and noticed that the scalar replacement of aggregates pass takes a lot longer for some code. Has there been a performance regression in this pass, or does it do more work? LLVM 3.0: Total Execution Time: 1.0600 seconds (1.0526 wall clock) ---User Time--- --System Time-- --User+System-- ---Wall Time--- --- Name --- 0.5100

Hello, I have an input file: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/file/n3700031/testOut.txt testOut.txt where col 1 is chromosome, column2 is start of region, column 3 is end of region, column 4 and 5 is base position, column 6 is total reads, column 7 is methylation data, and column 8 is the strand. I would like a summary output file such as:

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'm using R for Mac OSX version 1.14 (2129) and the geoR package version 1.6-5 (the current version in the R repository). I'm running R in OS 10.4.6 on a Mac G4 iBook (933MHz, 640 MB DDR SDRAM). I searched the R archive and did not find a posting on this issue. I want to use the variog and variog4 functions of geoR to characterize the pattern of spatial autocorrelation of tree

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

Hi all, I have investigated the compile-time overhead of "Polly Scop Detection" pass based on LNT testing results. This mail is to share some results I have found. (1) Analysis of "SCOP Detection Pass" for PolyBench (Attached file PolyBench_SCoPs.log) Experimental results show that the "SCOP Detection pass" does not lead to significant extra compile-time

For those who are interested, I've run 3 EAQUAL tests on both the LAME and OGG encoders: LAME with the --alt-standard preset (with and without --nspsytune) and OGGENC (RC3) with -q 6 (my personal "sweet spot") I am somewhat unsure though about the validity of these tests, since the original and decoded files were not the same size (2 KB difference). The LAME encoded files were also

On 06/29/2013 05:04 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi all, > > > > I have investigated the compile-time overhead of "Polly Scop Detection" pass based on LNT testing results. > This mail is to share some results I have found. > > > (1) Analysis of "SCOP Detection Pass" for PolyBench (Attached file PolyBench_SCoPs.log) > Experimental results show that the

At 2013-06-30 08:34:34,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 06/29/2013 05:04 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> I have investigated the compile-time overhead of "Polly Scop Detection" pass based on LNT testing results. >> This mail is to share some results I have found. >> >> >> (1) Analysis

Here is a drop-in replacement for the R incomplete beta function. src/math/pbeta.c It is a slightly modified version of the cephes library one from Netlib. In the few cases I tried it seems to give at least 14 digit agreement with the one in S-PLUS (its hard to get more). I'm not sure what performance is like. I'd like to know if it helps with some of the problems which have been

Hi, Sorry for the delay in response. I measured the code size change and noticed small changes in both directions for individual programs. I found a 30k binary size growth for the entire testsuite + SPEC. I attached an updated performance report that includes both compile time and performance measurements. Thanks, Nadav On Jul 14, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com>

On Jul 14, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 13, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> LLVM’s SLP-vectorizer is a new pass that combines similar independent instructions in a straight-line code. It is currently not enabled by default, and people who want to experiment with it

This may not actually be an R/Splus problem, but it started off that way ..... ===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+=== Executive summary: ================== Simulations involving extreme value distributions seem to ``work'' when the underlying distribution is exponential(1) or exponential(2) == chi-squared_2, but NOT when the underlying distribution is

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. >>