search for: 0.3120

A sample of the data I have is: > head(sensor) logged_on accx accy accz compassx compassy compassz gyrox gyroy gyroz 1 1326561428000 -0.4602 0.8346 0.0936 0.145508 -0.350586 0.259766 59.617390 28.521740 59.617390 2 1326561428050 -0.4212 1.0452 0.1326 0.219727 -0.321289 0.241211 88.695656 27.478260 88.695656 3 1326561428100 -0.2496 1.3416 0.2886 0.214844 -0.326172

Hi, I ran the example on pp. 799-800 from Machael Crawley's "The R Book" using package survival v. 2.36-5, R 2.13.0 and RStudio 0.94.83. The model is a Cox's Proportional Hazards model. The result was quite different compared to the R Book. I have compared my code to the code in the book but can not find any differences in the function call. My results are attached as well as a

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

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

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