search for: indistiguishable

Reid, I have one substantial change to suggest to this. I think the distinction between module-level and cross-module optimization is artificial and unnecessary in LLVM because transparent link-time optimization makes intra-module and cross-module optimizations indistiguishable. It *is* important to distinguish between fast and slow optimizations. Because of this, I would suggest a simpler scheme: -O0 and -O1 -- unchanged -O2 -- fast function-, module- and program-level optimizations -O3 -- aggressive (potentially slow) function-, module- and...

Bert Gunter wrote on 01.04.2016 23:46: > ... of course, whether one **should** get them is questionable... > > http://www.nature.com/news/statisticians-issue-warning-over-misuse-of-p-values-1.19503#/ref-link-1 > This paper repeats the common place statement that a small p-value does not necessarily indicate an important finding. Agreed, but maybe I overlooked examples of important

Dear R users, I am struggling to fit expo-linear equation to my data using "nls" function. I am always getting error message as i highlighted below in yellow color:  Theexpo-linear equation which i am interested to fit my data:       response_variable =  (c/r)*log(1+exp(r*(Day-tt))), where "Day" is time-variable my response variable rl <-

Folks, I'm at the point in developing llvmc (Compiler Driver) where I need to get the details on the specific optimization arguments that the -O family of options should (by default) issue to "opt". I'm soliciting your feedback on this so I can start testing optimization. Hopefully you can provide it by early this coming week. For clarity, the -O options are currently defined

... of course, whether one **should** get them is questionable... http://www.nature.com/news/statisticians-issue-warning-over-misuse-of-p-values-1.19503#/ref-link-1 Cheers, Bert Bert Gunter "The trouble with having an open mind is that people keep coming along and sticking things into it." -- Opus (aka Berkeley Breathed in his "Bloom County" comic strip ) On Fri, Apr

so, should this go into 3.5? Index: serverloop.c =================================================================== RCS file: /home/markus/cvs/ssh/serverloop.c,v retrieving revision 1.103 diff -u -r1.103 serverloop.c --- serverloop.c 24 Jun 2002 14:33:27 -0000 1.103 +++ serverloop.c 12 Jul 2002 16:34:20 -0000 @@ -388,6 +388,11 @@ buffer_append(&stderr_buffer, buf, len); } } + /*