search for: 0.6163

> From: kjetil halvorsen [mailto:kjetilh at umsanet.edu.bo] > > Martin Hoyle wrote: > > > > Dear Greg, > > Thanks for the new release. The decomposition of the SSQ is > just what I need! > > > I thought decomposition of the SSQ can be obtained with the split= > argument to summary.aov? That argument seems tro be new --- it didnt > exist two years

Hi Experts, I am new to R, and was wondering how to do 3D linear regression in R. In other words, I need to Fit a 3-Dimensional Line to Data Points (input). I googled before posting this, and found that it is possible in Matlab and other commercial packages. For example, see the Matlab link:

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. >

Hello, Is this a bug in the lmer routine? > library(lme4) > ### test case based on rats data from Crawley > a<-rnorm(36);b<-rep(1:3,each=12);c<-rep(1:2,each=6,3);d<-rep (1:3,each=2,6) > > ### mixed model works when c & d are numeric, lmer assumes they are factors > m <- lmer(a ~ b + (1|c/d)) > > ### but bails out when they are actually

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 -