search for: 0.5703

## The following corrects what I believe to have been an error in my previous post: #### Two time series questions: I. FITTING TRANSFER FUNCTIONS WITH LAGS: Consider the following toy example: > dates <- paste(11:21, "/01/2005", sep="") > Dates <- as.Date(dates, "%d/%m/%Y") > set.seed(1) > DF <- data.frame(date=Dates, y=rnorm(11),

Sorry, haven't really looked since our initial interaction. That EDID decodes as: Block 0, Base EDID: EDID Structure Version & Revision: 1.0 Vendor & Product Identification: Manufacturer: SEC Model: 21569 Made in: 2010 Basic Display Parameters & Features: Digital display Maximum image size: 34 cm x 19 cm Gamma: 2.20 RGB color display First

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 -

Another log, per Lyude on #nouveau. j On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 8:52:51 AM AKST Joshua J. Kugler wrote: > Here we go! > > j > > On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 7:08:20 AM AKST Ilia Mirkin wrote: > > Hi Joshua, > > > > Not a fix for your issue, but Ben noticed this (and fixed it): > > > >