search for: 0.1160

>> 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

My data frame consists of character variables, factors, and proportions, something like c1 <- c("A", "B", "C", "C") c2 <- factor(c(1, 1, 2, 2), labels = c("Y","N")) x <- c(0.5234, 0.6919, 0.2307, 0.1160) y <- c(0.9251, 0.7616, 0.3624, 0.4462) df <- data.frame(c1, c2, x, y) pct <- function(x) round(100*x, 1) I want to

Dear R users, I have a matrix "final" which looks like this: final oSO4 oNO3 mSO4 mNO3 [1,] 3.3728 0.2110 1.9517421 1.01883602 [2,] 0.8249 0.0697 1.5970292 0.11368781 [3,] 0.2636 0.1004 0.6012445 0.24356332 [4,] 8.0072 0.3443 6.1016998 3.63207149 [5,] 13.5079 0.6593 12.4011068 1.55323386 [6,] 6.1293 0.1989 5.7620926 0.12884845 [7,] 0.6004 0.0661

Dear professor Fox and R helpers, I have a quick question about the Anova function in the car package. When using the default "type II" SS I get results that I don't understand (see below). library(car) Data <- data.frame(y=rnorm(10), x1=factor(c(rep("a",4), rep("b",6))), x2 = factor(c(rep("j", 2), rep("k", 3), rep("j", 2),

Dear R-listers Is there anyone who knows why I get different eigenvectors when I run MatLab and R? I run both programs in Windows Me. Can I make R to produce the same vectors as MatLab? #R Matrix PA9900<-c(11/24 ,10/53 ,0/1 ,0/1 ,29/43 ,1/24 ,27/53 ,0/1 ,0/1 ,13/43 ,14/24 ,178/53 ,146/244 ,17/23 ,15/43 ,2/24 ,4/53 ,0/1 ,2/23 ,2/43 ,4/24 ,58/53 ,26/244 ,0/1 ,5/43) #R-syntax

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

Dear Sir or Madam? I am a doctor of urology,and I am engaged in developing a nomogram of bladder cancer. May I ask for your help on below issue? I set up a dataset which include 317 cases. I got the Binary Logistic Regression model by SPSS.And then I try to reconstruct the model ?lrm(RECU~Complication+T.Num+T.Grade+Year+TS)? by R-Project,and try to internal validate the model through

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

My name is Giovanna and I am a PhD student in Norway. I am a beginner with statistics and R, hence my ignorance. Apologies from now..... I have been collecting data on time performances of 5 subjects using a 1:3 scale tower yarder. The task was consisting in yarding 5 small logs placed on permanently marked course. Four subjects had different previous experiences (None, Some) and the fifth was 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 2.1 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