search for: aggression

Anyone know if it is possible to control how aggressively the "Aggressive" mode behaves. Meaning, is it possible to dial back the aggressive mode to have a happy medium between Regular and the Aggressive defaults. I have a situation where Normal echo cancellation is not quite enough, however when I turn on aggressive mode We are attacking it to hard and I am unhappy with the walkie

When compiling C code below for AArach64, I saw that shrink-wrapping didn't happen due to the very early uses of CSRs in the entry block. So CSR spills/reloads are executed even when the early exit block is taken. int getI(int i); int foo(int *P, int i) { if (i>0) return P[i]; i = getI(i); return P[i]; } It's not that hard to find such cases where

...may be causing this? Thanks a lot for your help! Raphael Royaute PhD candidate Dept Natural Resource Sciences McGill University, Macdonald campus Below is my code and output (my apologies, this is a pretty lengthy output): Riskmodel2_cfa <- '# Latent variable ????? ????? SySt =~ Activity+Aggression+Voracity # Residuals ??????? Boldness~~Boldness' fit.riskmodel2_multi_Ad_cfa <- cfa(Riskmodel2_cfa, data=Ad_scale, std.lv=T,std.ov=T, ???????????????????????????????? se= "boot",test="bootstrap", ???????????????????????????????? bootstrap=5000L,group="Site") sum...

Is there a way to set how aggressive the inliner pass (createFunctionInliningPass) without going through the command line interface? Is there any reason InlineLimit isn't an argument to the createFunctionInliningPass function? Thanks, Robert

On 27 November 2013 19:36, Robinson, Paul <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: > That's correct, -g must not affect code generation. This is a > fundamental mantra among debug-info people. I think you both got me on the wrong side, though I admit my email wasn't clear. I didn't mean to suggest changing codegen for debug purposes only, but on -O1 to be less

On Mar 13, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Arnaud Allard de Grandmaison wrote: > Hi all, > > The IndVarSimplify pass seems to be too aggressive when it enlarge the induction variable type ; this can pessimize the generated code when the new induction variable size is not natively supported by the target. This is probably not an issue for x86_64, which supports natively all types, but it is a real one

I like to propose a new loop multi versioning optimization for LICM. For now I kept this for LICM only, but it can be used in multiple places. The main motivation is to allow optimizations stuck because of memory alias dependencies. Most of the time when alias analysis is unsure about memory access and it says may-alias. This un surety from alias analysis restrict some of the memory based

Hi, Regarding the mischeduler, I wonder // For loops that are acyclic path limited, aggressively schedule for // latency. This can result in very long dependence chains scheduled in // sequence, so once every cycle (when CurrMOps == 0), switch to normal // heuristics. if (Rem.IsAcyclicLatencyLimited && !Zone->getCurrMOps() && tryLatency(TryCand, Cand, *Zone))

On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:16:12PM -0700, Reid Spencer wrote: > So I propose: > [snip] > -O3 = aggressive optimization, regardless of computation time with the > effect of producing the fastest executable I would suggest splitting -O3 into 2 or more levels of optimization, because as written, -O3 sounds pretty scary: "regardless of computation time", and given some

Hi, I have a new variant of Aggressive Dead Code Elimination that also removes dead branching. It is designed to minimize the cost of control-dependence analysis in the common case where almost the entire program is live. It also can optionally remove dead but may-be-infinite loops. When enabled for –O3 (replacing current ADCE pass) and removing loops, impact on SPEC2006 is in the noise but it

David Callahan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > Hi, > > I have a new variant of Aggressive Dead Code Elimination that also > removes dead branching. It is designed to minimize the cost of > control-dependence analysis in the common case where almost the entire > program is live. It also can optionally remove dead but > may-be-infinite loops. > >

On Mar 13, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Arnaud Allard de Grandmaison wrote: > Hi all, > > The IndVarSimplify pass seems to be too aggressive when it enlarge the induction variable type ; this can pessimize the generated code when the new induction variable size is not natively supported by the target. This is probably not an issue for x86_64, which supports natively all types, but it is a real one

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:58 AM, John Regehr wrote: > > http://blog.regehr.org/archives/761 > > It's an interesting post, but I'd like to point out that it is a non-goal > for the project to be actively hostile to users of the compiler. :) It is > useful to have debugging tools for

Processing commands for control at bugs.debian.org: > reassign 648146 logcheck-database 1.3.13 Bug #648146 [logcheck-database-1.3.13] ignore.d.server/ssh is too aggressive Warning: Unknown package 'logcheck-database-1.3.13' Bug reassigned from package 'logcheck-database-1.3.13' to 'logcheck-database'. Bug No longer marked as found in versions squeeze. Bug #648146

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Robert Zeh wrote: > Is there a way to set how aggressive the inliner pass > (createFunctionInliningPass) without going through the command line > interface? Nope. Well, you could call cl::ParseCommandLine yourself (passing in a static array) like llvm-gcc does, but other than that "no". > Is there any reason InlineLimit isn't an argument to the

[+Danny] ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Justin Bogner via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "David Callahan via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 12:36:50 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: New aggressive dead code elimination pass > > David Callahan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

On 2017-10-27 19:50, Hal Finkel wrote: > On 10/27/2017 03:32 PM, Jun Lim via llvm-dev wrote: > >> When compiling C code below for AArach64, I saw that shrink-wrapping >> didn't happen due to the very early uses of CSRs in the entry block. >> So CSR spills/reloads are executed even when the early exit block is >> taken. >> >> int getI(int i); >>

> AFAIU, it's not OK for -g to affect code generation. I agree with the > rest of your plan. That's correct, -g must not affect code generation. This is a fundamental mantra among debug-info people. > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: > > On 27 November 2013 08:43, Evgeniy Stepanov >

...ving trouble figuring out which statistical tests/models to use for my two hypotheses. #1: Comparing the presence of an observer (a categorical variable consisting of either Approaching/Near, Near or On Top of Cage) to the presence of aggressive behavior (again categorical variables consisting of Aggression, Freeze/Hide Behavior, Escape Behavior, Aggressive Vocalizations and Fear Vocalizations each as separate binary categories in my spreadsheet) #2: Comparing the age of the monkey (continuous variable) to Freeze/Hide behavior, Aggressive Vocalizations and Fear Vocalizations (again binary categories/...

I see the BackendUtil.cpp of Clang creates the TargetMachine with the optimization level based on below mentioned logic CodeGenOpt::Level OptLevel = CodeGenOpt::Default; switch (CodeGenOpts.OptimizationLevel) { default: break; case 0: OptLevel = CodeGenOpt::None; break; case 3: OptLevel = CodeGenOpt::Aggressive; break; } As per my understanding, the correspondence between