search for: 0.2675

Um texto embutido e sem conjunto de caracteres especificado associado... Nome: n?o dispon?vel Url: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/20060711/1da40382/attachment.pl

Hi, I recently changed from uw imap to dovecot on the sound recommendation of a friend and have mostly succeeded in getting all of my clients up and running, but am really stuck with the iPhone which is failing to make connections. I run certificates on all of my clients and thunderbird happily connects both locally and remotely. I installed the certificate on the iPhone after great pain (pk12

Thanks Winston! I'm amazed that "[[" beats calling the .Internal directly. I guess the difference between .Primitive vs. .Internal is pretty significant for things on this time scale. NULL meaning NULL and NULL meaning undefined would lead to the same path for much of my code. I'll be swapping out many exists and get calls later today. Thanks! I do still think it would be

Hi All, I've been looking into speeding up the loading of packages that use a lot of S4. After profiling I noticed the "exists" function accounts for a surprising fraction of the time. I have some thoughts about speeding up exists (below). More to the point of this post, Martin M?chler noted that 'exists' and 'get' are often used in conjunction. Both functions are

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

I've looked at related speed issues in the past, and have a couple related points to add. (I've put the info below at http://rpubs.com/wch/46428.) There?s a significant amount of overhead just from calling the R function get(). This is true even when you skip the pos argument and provide envir. For example, if you call get(), it takes much more time than .Internal(get()), which is what

> 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. >

All, So that suggests that .GlobalEnv[["X"]] is more efficient than get("X", pos=1L). What about .GlobalEnv[["X"]] <- value, compared to assign("X", value)? Dave On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Peter Haverty <haverty.peter at gene.com> wrote: > Thanks Winston! I'm amazed that "[[" beats calling the .Internal > directly. I

> 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 -