search for: 0.2674

Hi, I'm trying to work through a Nested ANOVA for the following scenario: 20 males were used to fertilize eggs of 4 females per male, so that female is nested within male (80 females used total). Spine length was measured on 11 offspring per family, resulting in 880 measurements on 80 families. I used the following two commands: summary(aov(Spinelength ~ Male*Female)) and

First of all, sorry for the long mail. Inspired by the excellent analysis Rui did for lld, I decided to do the same for llvm. I'm personally very interested in build-time for LTO configuration, with particular attention to the time spent in the optimizer. Rafael did something similar back in March, so this can be considered as an update. This tries to include a more accurate high-level

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> On Dec 17, 2016, at 1:35 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> First of all, sorry for the long mail. >> Inspired by the excellent analysis Rui did for lld, I decided to do >> the same for llvm. >> I'm personally very

> On Dec 17, 2016, at 1:35 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > First of all, sorry for the long mail. > Inspired by the excellent analysis Rui did for lld, I decided to do > the same for llvm. > I'm personally very interested in build-time for LTO configuration, > with particular attention to the time spent in the optimizer. >

> On Dec 17, 2016, at 1:35 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > First of all, sorry for the long mail. > Inspired by the excellent analysis Rui did for lld, I decided to do > the same for llvm. > I'm personally very interested in build-time for LTO configuration, > with particular attention to the time spent in the optimizer. >

On 12/17/2016 01:35 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev wrote: > First of all, sorry for the long mail. > Inspired by the excellent analysis Rui did for lld, I decided to do > the same for llvm. > I'm personally very interested in build-time for LTO configuration, > with particular attention to the time spent in the optimizer. > Rafael did something similar back in March, so

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > First of all, sorry for the long mail. > Inspired by the excellent analysis Rui did for lld, I decided to do > the same for llvm. > I'm personally very interested in build-time for LTO configuration, > with particular attention to the time spent in the optimizer. >

Hi Davide, Thanks for the analysis, it's really interesting! And I'm really glad that we now put more and more attention at the compile time! Just recently I've been looking into historical compile time data as well, and have had similar conclusions. The regressions you've found are probably caused by: 1) r289813 and r289855 - new matchers in InstCombine 2) r286814 and r288024 -

On 04/26/2013 05:08 AM, tanmx_star wrote: > Hi all, Hi, thanks for the update and sorry for the delay in reviewing. I just had a look at your proposal. > I have updated my GSoS proposal: "FastPolly: Reducing LLVM-Polly Compiling overhead" (https://gist.github.com/tanstar/5441808). I think the pass ordering problem you discussed early can be also investigated in this project!

Hi all, I have updated my GSoS proposal: "FastPolly: Reducing LLVM-Polly Compiling overhead" (https://gist.github.com/tanstar/5441808). I think the pass ordering problem you discussed early can be also investigated in this project! Is there any comment or advice about my proposal? I appreciate all your help and advice. Thanks, Star Tan Proposal: