Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "50.35".
Did you mean:
0.35
2012 Nov 20
2
Help with loess
Not sure what I'm doing wrong. Can't seem to get loess values. It looks like
loess is returning the same values as the input.
j <-loess(x1$total~as.numeric(index(x1)
plot(x1$total,type='l', ylab='M coms/y global',xlab='')
lines(loess(total~as.numeric(index(x1)),x1))
The plot statement works fine
No errors with the "lines" statement
But I don't
2011 Oct 29
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 12:30 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote:
> Ralf, et al.,
>
> Attached is the latest version of my autovectorization patch. llvmdev
> has been CC'd (as had been suggested to me); this e-mail contains
> additional benchmark results.
>
> First, these are preliminary results because I did not do the things
> necessary to make them real (explicitly quiet the
2011 Oct 29
4
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
Ralf, et al.,
Attached is the latest version of my autovectorization patch. llvmdev
has been CC'd (as had been suggested to me); this e-mail contains
additional benchmark results.
First, these are preliminary results because I did not do the things
necessary to make them real (explicitly quiet the machine, bind the
processes to one cpu, etc.). But they should be good enough for
discussion.
2011 Oct 29
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 15:16 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 14:02 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 12:30 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote:
> > > Ralf, et al.,
> > >
> > > Attached is the latest version of my autovectorization patch. llvmdev
> > > has been CC'd (as had been suggested to me); this e-mail contains
> >
2011 Oct 29
4
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 14:02 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 12:30 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote:
> > Ralf, et al.,
> >
> > Attached is the latest version of my autovectorization patch. llvmdev
> > has been CC'd (as had been suggested to me); this e-mail contains
> > additional benchmark results.
> >
> > First, these are preliminary
2011 Aug 12
11
[net-next RFC PATCH 0/7] multiqueue support for tun/tap
As multi-queue nics were commonly used for high-end servers,
current single queue based tap can not satisfy the
requirement of scaling guest network performance as the
numbers of vcpus increase. So the following series
implements multiple queue support in tun/tap.
In order to take advantages of this, a multi-queue capable
driver and qemu were also needed. I just rebase the latest
version of
2011 Aug 12
11
[net-next RFC PATCH 0/7] multiqueue support for tun/tap
As multi-queue nics were commonly used for high-end servers,
current single queue based tap can not satisfy the
requirement of scaling guest network performance as the
numbers of vcpus increase. So the following series
implements multiple queue support in tun/tap.
In order to take advantages of this, a multi-queue capable
driver and qemu were also needed. I just rebase the latest
version of