search for: 0.1800

Dear list members, I am using Mclust in order to deconvolute a distribution that I believe is a sum of two gaussians. First I can make a model: > my.data.model = Mclust(my.data, modelNames=c("E"), warn=T, G=1:3) But then, when I try to plot the result, I get the following error: > mclust1Dplot(my.data.model, parameters = my.data.model$parameters, what = "density")

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

It seems to me that summary for ridge coxph() prints summary but returns NULL. It is not a big issue because one can calculate statistics directly from a coxph.object. However, for some reason the score test is not calculated for ridge coxph(), i.e score nor rscore components are not included in the coxph object when ridge is specified. Please find the code below. I use 2.9.2 R with 2.35-4 version

It seems to me that R returns the unpenalized log-likelihood for the ratio likelihood test when ridge regression Cox proportional model is implemented. Is this as expected? In the example below, if I am not mistaken, fit$loglik[2] is unpenalized log-likelihood for the final estimates of coefficients. I would expect to get the penalized log-likelihood. I would like to check if this is as expected.

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

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

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

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