search for: assumption

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> There are a few places where we break the assumption: >> 1> formal_parameter constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute type >> we call SPCU->addType(Arg, ATy), where Arg does not belong to SPCU. >> 2> inlined_subroutine constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute >> abstract_origin >> The inl...

...> > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> There are a few places where we break the assumption: >>> 1> formal_parameter constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute type >>> we call SPCU->addType(Arg, ATy), where Arg does not belong to SPCU. >>> 2> inlined_subroutine constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute >>> abstract_origin >&...

...2013 at 1:58 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> There are a few places where we break the assumption: >>>> 1> formal_parameter constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute type >>>> we call SPCU->addType(Arg, ATy), where Arg does not belong to SPCU. >>>> 2> inlined_subroutine constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute >>>> abstr...

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to best represent an assumption statement(*) in IR? In particular, I want to expose the information implied by the assumption to the optimization passes without emitting code (after optimization) to check the assumption itself. I've tried a couple of options so far, and none have gotten me quite the right semantics. H...

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > There are a few places where we break the assumption: > 1> formal_parameter constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute type > we call SPCU->addType(Arg, ATy), where Arg does not belong to SPCU. > 2> inlined_subroutine constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute > abstract_origin > The inlined_subroutine does...

There are a few places where we break the assumption: 1> formal_parameter constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute type we call SPCU->addType(Arg, ATy), where Arg does not belong to SPCU. 2> inlined_subroutine constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute abstract_origin The inlined_subroutine does not belong to the CU we...

...ume` is also not optimal, especially since we do > not need to "optimize" these instructions anyway. I don't understand what you mean by the reconstructing the pattern from the instructions not being optimal, but in general, we do need to optimize the instructions forming the assumption condition. The expressions might have calls that should be inlined, or as a general matter, have expressions involving temporaries that need to be simplified (especially soon as you start allowing expressions that might have side effects, you'll also have to deal with temporaries that are...

Hi Philip, > Does anyone have any suggestions on how to best represent an assumption > statement(*) in IR? good question! There have been various attempts, for example Nick tried teaching the optimizers to not prune the branch to unreachable in br %cond, label %assumption_holds, %assumption_doesnt_hold assumption_doesnt_hold: unreachable This then leads to %cond being...

...l -load libPlaydep.so > -O3 -playdep --debug-pass=Structure" > And the output: > > opt -o /dev/null test.ll -S -load ./libPlaydep.so -O3 -playdep > --debug-pass=Structure > Pass Arguments: -targetlibinfo -datalayout -notti -basictti -x86tti -no-aa > -tbaa -scoped-noalias -assumption-cache-tracker -basicaa -verify-di -ipsccp > -globalopt -deadargelim -domtree -instcombine -simplifycfg -basiccg > -prune-eh -inline-cost -inline -functionattrs -argpromotion -sroa -domtree > -early-cse -lazy-value-info -jump-threading -correlated-propagation > -simplifycfg -domtree -ins...

Hi All, I am doing linear mixed model analysis for my multi-location experiment using R package "lme4". I just wonder whether I should check my data first to see whether they meet the three assumptions of ANOVA, that is, independence, normality and homogeneity. I saw a lot of examples and the manual of lme4, but no one did data check first. In my experiment, the assumption of homogeneity usually cannot be met. I do not know whether it will affect the result a lot or not. Thanks. Junli

Hi all, I was trying to test the assumption of proportional hazards assumption, I used the cox.zph function >cox.zph(coxfit6) Results are: rho chisq p x1 -0.0396 1.397 2.37e-01 x2 0.1107 9.715 1.83e-03 x3 -0.0885 7.743 5.39e-03 x4 0.0366 1.092 2.96e...

I would like to test in R what regression fits my data best. My dependent variable is a count, and has a lot of zeros. And I would need some help to determine what model and family to use (poisson or quasipoisson, or zero-inflated poisson regression), and how to test the assumptions. 1) Poisson Regression: as far as I understand, the strong assumption is that dependent variable mean = variance. How do you test this? How close together do they have to be? Are unconditional or conditional mean and variance used for this? What do I do if this assumption does not hold? 2) I rea...

...IEs? This is why we should carefully think about the new semantics we're introducing by doing cross-CU DIE references. > If you think it should not happen, we should put a comment in so other > developers will not violate it. > But that is irrelevant if we are going to make a single assumption: > "in addDIEEntry, if a DIE is without a parent, it belongs to the CU we > call addDIEEntry on". > I'm not entirely sure that will be true. In the case of implicit special members, such as the copy ctor, what could happen is that a later CU might want to add a member func...

...el 1) R~A*B*C*D If I use the "*" in R among all elements it means to me to explore all interactions and include them in the model i.e. I think this would be the so called 2-way anova. However, if I do this, it leads to model violations i.e. the homoscedasticity is violated, the normality assumption of the sample errors i.e. residuals is violated etc. I tried correcting the issues using different standard transformations: log, sqrt, Box-Cox forms etc but none really improve the result. In this case even though the model assumptions do not hold, some of the interactions are found to significati...

...the new semantics we're >> introducing by doing cross-CU DIE references. >> >> >>> If you think it should not happen, we should put a comment in so other >>> developers will not violate it. >>> But that is irrelevant if we are going to make a single assumption: >>> "in addDIEEntry, if a DIE is without a parent, it belongs to the CU we >>> call addDIEEntry on". >>> >> >> I'm not entirely sure that will be true. In the case of implicit special >> members, such as the copy ctor, what could happen...

I want to test whether the proportional odds assumption for an ordered regression is met. The UCLA website points out that there is no mathematical way to test the proportional odds assumption (http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat//R/dae/ologit.htm), and use graphical inspection ("We were unable to locate a facility in R to perform any of the tests common...

...e most explicit model, but has the disadvantage of introducing a new IR concept that will be rarely used (and thus prone to bugs due to it not being widely tested). > If we make our representation fit the model, does that improve the quality of the code? There's clearly been a long standing assumption that GlobalValues are of pointer type. Breaking that assumption has in fact found potential bugs (see e.g. my changes to ValueTracking.cpp in D25930, as well as D25917 which was a requirement for the representational change), and seems like it may help prevent bugs in the future, so I'd say tha...

...;re >>> introducing by doing cross-CU DIE references. >>> >>> >>>> If you think it should not happen, we should put a comment in so >>>> other developers will not violate it. >>>> But that is irrelevant if we are going to make a single assumption: >>>> "in addDIEEntry, if a DIE is without a parent, it belongs to the CU >>>> we call addDIEEntry on". >>>> >>> >>> I'm not entirely sure that will be true. In the case of implicit special >>> members, such as the copy...

...d carefully think about the new semantics we're > introducing by doing cross-CU DIE references. > > >> If you think it should not happen, we should put a comment in so other >> developers will not violate it. >> But that is irrelevant if we are going to make a single assumption: >> "in addDIEEntry, if a DIE is without a parent, it belongs to the CU we >> call addDIEEntry on". >> > > I'm not entirely sure that will be true. In the case of implicit special > members, such as the copy ctor, what could happen is that a later CU might...

Dear all, Can I do a permutation test if the number of individuals in one group is much bigger than in the other group? I searched the literature but I didin´t find any assumption that refers to this subject for permutation tests. Best regards João Fadista Ph.d. student UNIVERSITY OF AARHUS Faculty of Agricultural Sciences Dept. of Genetics and Biotechnology Blichers Allé 20, P.O. BOX 50 DK-8830 Tjele Phone: +45 8999 1900 Direct: +45 8999 1900 E-mail:...