search for: approach

Thanks for both the mapply and array approaches! However, although intended to generate the same result, they don't: # mapply approach n = 3 sa <- rnorm(n,0.8,0.1) so <- rnorm(n,0.5,0.1) m <- rnorm(n,1.2,0.1) mats = mapply(function(sa1, so1, m1) matrix(c(0,sa1*m1,so1,sa1),2,2,byrow=T), sa, so, m, SIMPLIFY = FALSE) print(mats)...

...will refactor and add unimplemented features while upstreaming it. That said, the source code from above link * is not guarantee to be compilable on other machines, * is not stable or bug-free, and * should not be considered as the final version for upstream. I decided to take the code generator approach (referred to as codegen approach) rather than C backend appraoch (referred to as cbe approach) for the following reasons (in fact, I had my first prototype in cbe approach, but later I abandoned it and rewrote in codegen approach). This would partly answer previous questions about comparison betwee...

Che-Liang Chiou <clchiou at gmail.com> writes: > My implementation of predicated instructions is similar to ARM > backend. I traced ARM and PowerPC backend for reference. Cool. > If, David, you were saying a implementation of predication in LLVM IR, > I didn't do that. It was partly because I was not (and is still not) > very familiar with LLVM's design; so I

...om> writes: > Hi there, > > Thank Nick for kindly reviewing the patch. Here is the link to the > source code of the PTX backend; it would help Nick review the patch. > http://lime.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~clchiou/llvm-ptx-backend.tar.gz Great! > I decided to take the code generator approach (referred to as codegen > approach) rather than C backend appraoch (referred to as cbe approach) > for the following reasons (in fact, I had my first prototype in cbe > approach, but later I abandoned it and rewrote in codegen approach). > This would partly answer previous questions abo...

Saludos a todos. Tengo que aplicar: Two-Step Approach (patch approach) Hybrid Approach (give away approach) De acuerdo al libro de Gaston Sanchez "PLS Path Modeling with R". ¿Alguien puede apoyarme? -- *César O. Velázquez Vega**.* [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

On 28/09/2017 9:10 AM, Evan Cooch wrote: > Thanks for both the mapply and array approaches! However, although > intended to generate the same result, they don't: > > # mapply approach > > n = 3 > sa <- rnorm(n,0.8,0.1) > so <- rnorm(n,0.5,0.1) > m <- rnorm(n,1.2,0.1) > mats = mapply(function(sa1, so1, m1) > matrix(c(0,sa1*m1,so1,sa1),2,2,b...

Thanks, that sounds like it would work. Was this based on what any other target did? Or do any other targets take this approach? I just want to make sure that we don't already have a hook suitable for this. Overriding runOnFunction to run what could be described as just a "late SelectionDAG pass" sounds pretty intrusive. Do you remember other approaches that didn't work? -- Sean Silva On Dec 22, 2017 2:...

Hi everyone, I believe the ABI for exception unwinding on a stack tagged with MTE needs to be clarified -- hopefully we can start the discussion here? (Please feel free to add people to the thread that you think would be interested). I'll outline some possible approaches that I think seem good below, I know Evgenii and Peter have done a lot of investigation in this area for HWASAN, so I'm hoping you can see any problems I've missed, or indeed propose something better if there's another approach ;-) --- Extra restriction on landing pads --- No matte...

Sure -- thanks -- only took me 3-4 attempts to get aperm to work (as opposed to really thinking hard about how it works ;-) On 9/28/2017 11:55 AM, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > On 28/09/2017 9:10 AM, Evan Cooch wrote: >> Thanks for both the mapply and array approaches! However, although >> intended to generate the same result, they don't: >> >> # mapply approach >> >> n = 3 >> sa <- rnorm(n,0.8,0.1) >> so <- rnorm(n,0.5,0.1) >> m <- rnorm(n,1.2,0.1) >> mats = mapply(function(sa1, so1, m1) &gt...

.../Tree hierarchical grouping (Tree and Families are considered random factors) and estimate the within and among families variance of the parameters. I understand from the Pinheiro and Bates book that there is a degree of freedom issue, but what are the real advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches? This issues is prompted by the fact that it is easy for me to have results using the first approach but there is no way that the second approach reaches some kind of convergence: it takes hours and the it stops without reaching satisfactory results. I have tried several simplifications of the m...

All, We are researching approaches to parallel R with the end goal of running R in a distributed manner on a Linux cluster. We expect of course to do some work decomposing our problems to be task-parallel or data-parallel, but wouldn't mind getting an initial boost working with "embarrassingly parallel" code sections...

...erstand that this has been asked, e.g., http://stackoverflow.com/questions/40350990/relationship-between-clang-opt-llc-and-llvm-linker. Sorry for posting a similar question again, but I still have something that hasn't been resolved yet. More specifically I am wondering about the following two approaches compiling optimized executable: 1. clang -O3 -c source.c -o source.o ... clang a.o b.o c.o ... -o executable 2. clang -O0 -c -emit-llvm -o source.bc opt -O3 source.bc -o source.bc llc -O3 -filetype=obj source.bc -o source.o ... clang a.o b.o c.o ... -o executable I took...

...project that aims to clustering tweets based on the text similarity and user profile. I noticed that "Clustering of Search Results" have mentioned disappointing performance.I am puzzled that is this project just concerned improve the performance of the old code or also trying to find new approaches? Besides clustering speed, how to evaluate clustering effect? Look forward to exchanging ideas with you. Thanks -- Chi Liu (??) +86-15210624786 Undergraduate Student Team of Search Engine and Web Mining School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science Peking University, Beijing, 100871,...

> You can solve andersens and steengaards and everything else using > standard dataflow solvers, and that's an implementation strategy, but > it will be really slow. > > Part of the tradeoff is how fast something runs, and approaches that > are orders of magnitude faster often change the calculus of what > people do. For example, before hardekopf's work, andersens was > considered too slow to be practical in a real compiler. > > Now, GCC does it by default. > > So i would call that approach a super...

...it >>> different in >>> that we also have to handle java's special rule for dividing -1 >>> by the >>> minimum integer -- I think most platforms actually call the helper >>> function). > >> Specifically, I don't think either of these approaches will be >> sufficient when using LLVM as a JIT in libgcj. In either case, an >> LLVM optimization could still reorder trapping instructions. In >> the first approach, this is less likely to occur but is possible. >> The second approach of course wouldn't wor...

I''m curious to see how others are dealing with the construction of multi-page forms. I can see a couple of ways to do this, each with their own advantages/disadvantates. Approach 1: * define one table with columns for each form entry. * define a method/view for each page, which only displays a subset of the fields. * submitting a page saves the data and moves on to the next page. This one strikes me as a brute force solution, but may avoid many problems. It may also resul...

I''m just getting back to looking at backgroundrb after a long hiatus since June. I''m looking at creating some workers but I''m a bit stuck as to how I should write tests for them. What''s the recommended approach for unit testing of workers? The project will ultimately be used by a Rails app but I''m comfortable developing the worker code as a standalone in the beginning. Any suggestions or examples? cr

Hello, My challenge is to run Linux on a computer where I don't dare to touch the Microsoft Windows harddisk. Fifthteen years ago would be trick to attach a second harddisk to the computer and boot from floppy disk. In 2011 is the idea to attach a second disk and netboot it. One approach is to TFTP the kernel and append 'root=/dev/sdb1' This E-mail is however to seek advice for another approach. In this approach is the kernel also on the second harddisk. I see two possible roads, both with dragons on it. The PXELINUX only road: Will PXELINUX load a kernel from disk? The...

...t;> >> Thank Nick for kindly reviewing the patch.  Here is the link to the >> source code of the PTX backend; it would help Nick review the patch. >> http://lime.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~clchiou/llvm-ptx-backend.tar.gz > > Great! > >> I decided to take the code generator approach (referred to as codegen >> approach) rather than C backend appraoch (referred to as cbe approach) >> for the following reasons (in fact, I had my first prototype in cbe >> approach, but later I abandoned it and rewrote in codegen approach). >> This would partly answer previo...

...#39; failed. > > The program completes its task and i get this in the end. I am unable to > resolve this. The problem there is that you're trying to delete some basic block that is still embedded into a function. There are several ways to accomplish this: BasicBlock *BB = ... // Approach number 1, the easy way: BB->eraseFromParent(); // Approach number 2, the more explicit way: BB->getParent()->getInstList().erase(BB); // Remove from list & delete // Approach number 3, remove from the list, then delete it explicitly: BB->getParent()->getInstList().remove(BB...