search for: assumptions

...ons we've discussed in this thread, keeping > a mapping every time we rely on the assumption and checking the mapping > whenever we resolve the parent chain. I don't think this is necessary, but > I wouldn't block such a change either. > > >> If we are going to make assumptions, >> > > We are always going to make assumptions - well, we're always going to have > invariants in our design where any violation of those invariants is a bug. > > >> I will suggest making general assumptions such as >> 1> always use a CU to construct a DIE &...

...assertion based on an assumption I've explained is not true (due to adding DIEs to types after-the-fact, due to things like implicit special members, member templates, and nested types). The assertion you would need to check that a worklist is not required would be a mapping listing the "assumptions" (ie: we found this parentless DIE and assumed it was in the same DIE as this other DIE we're building) and then, whenever a DIE is added to a parent that chains up to a CU we would have to check that mapping to see if the assumption turned out to be true. I don't mind if you implemen...

...ssumption I've explained > is not true (due to adding DIEs to types after-the-fact, due to things like > implicit special members, member templates, and nested types). > > The assertion you would need to check that a worklist is not required > would be a mapping listing the "assumptions" (ie: we found this parentless > DIE and assumed it was in the same DIE as this other DIE we're building) > and then, whenever a DIE is added to a parent that chains up to a CU we > would have to check that mapping to see if the assumption turned out to be > true. > > I d...

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. Has anyone else implemented

...can add the kind of assertions we've discussed in this thread, keeping a mapping every time we rely on the assumption and checking the mapping whenever we resolve the parent chain. I don't think this is necessary, but I wouldn't block such a change either. > If we are going to make assumptions, > We are always going to make assumptions - well, we're always going to have invariants in our design where any violation of those invariants is a bug. > I will suggest making general assumptions such as > 1> always use a CU to construct a DIE > 2> Before constructing a DI...

...x all these violations to make the assumption true? As I stated earlier, this assumption, in my opinion, is not really general, and if we only make this assumption to remove a worklist, it may not worth it. How can developers make sure this assumption is not later violated? If we are going to make assumptions, I will suggest making general assumptions such as 1> always use a CU to construct a DIE 2> Before constructing a DIE, figure out the owner CU first by chasing the context chain, then call construction on the owner CU. 3> Before calling addDIEEntry in DwarfDebug, find the owner CU first, t...

...'ll want to sink in the outlined assumption function. I believe you're thinking about addressing this with outlining, but I think that these are separate issues because the outlining needs to be done early. Regarding this late-outlining approach: > A prototype for both operand bundle assumptions and outlined assumptions > is available herehttps://reviews.llvm.org/D71692. Note that most code > is required do to the outlining [see rational in point C) below]. This > is not as actively purposed for now as the operand bundle use. I don't see how this can work in the case where yo...

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 replaced

...e -barrier -domtree -loops -loop-simplify > -lcssa -branch-prob -block-freq -scalar-evolution -loop-vectorize > -instcombine -scalar-evolution -slp-vectorizer -simplifycfg -domtree > -instcombine -loops -loop-simplify -lcssa -scalar-evolution -function_tti > -loop-unroll -alignment-from-assumptions -strip-dead-prototypes -globaldce > -constmerge -playdep -verify -verify-di -print-module > Target Library Information > Data Layout > No target information > Target independent code generator's TTI > X86 Target Transform Info > No Alias Analysis (always returns 'may...

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-01 x5 0.0242 0.455 5.00e-01 GLOBAL

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 read...

...ction on a CU. > Perhaps I'll need to go back and check your patch, but generally, I tend to think we should be calling into a CU to build anything ratehr than doing it 'raw' in DwarfDebug.cpp. > > >> >> >>> How much effort is required to make sure these assumptions are true? We >>> also should have the corresponding assertions to make sure the assumptions >>> are not violated. >>> >> >> Personally, I'm OK saying "this is the intended design, anything else is >> a bug" and leaving it at that. If we wan...

...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 significatively influence the response variable. But then shall I trust the results of this Model 1) given that the assumptions do not hold? Then I try this other model where I exclude the interactions (is this the 1-way anova?): Model 2) R~A+B+C+...

...gt; It is not related to my patch, we are directly constructing DIEs in > DwarfDebug in the current code base. > > Thanks, > Manman > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> How much effort is required to make sure these assumptions are true? >>>>> We also should have the corresponding assertions to make sure the >>>>> assumptions are not violated. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Personally, I'm OK saying "this is the intended design, anything else >>>>...

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 commonly used to test the parallel slopes

...a requirement for the representational change), and seems like it may help prevent bugs in the future, so I'd say that the answer is most likely yes. I’d argue the other side of it. The quality of the code is higher if we have invariants (like all globals are pointers) because that simplifies assumptions by eliminating cases where “is a pointer” appears to be true, but isn’t actually true in all cases. I’m not an expert on CFI or how widely it will ultimately impact the compiler hacker consciousness, but I’m pretty sure that the current model for globals and functions will remain more prominent....

...onstructing DIEs in >> DwarfDebug in the current code base. >> >> Thanks, >> Manman >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> How much effort is required to make sure these assumptions are true? >>>>>> We also should have the corresponding assertions to make sure the >>>>>> assumptions are not violated. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Personally, I'm OK saying "this is the intended design, anything el...

...than doing > it 'raw' in DwarfDebug.cpp. > It is not related to my patch, we are directly constructing DIEs in DwarfDebug in the current code base. Thanks, Manman > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> How much effort is required to make sure these assumptions are true? We >>>> also should have the corresponding assertions to make sure the assumptions >>>> are not violated. >>>> >>> >>> Personally, I'm OK saying "this is the intended design, anything else is >>> a bug" and leavi...

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.