Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "inverv".
Did you mean:
invert
2011 Nov 08
4
Intervals in function cut
...(x) elements belong to.
So, clearly, the first element of x, 0, belongs to (-0.008,0.994] because
-0.008 < 0 <= 0.994. However, when I come to the 14th element of x,
that is, 2, I don't see that it belongs to (2,3], because 2 < 2 <= 3,
is strictly false according to the standard inverval notation
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_notation). Maybe, there is something
I have not understood of either the cut function or the interval notation.
Do you have
any comments?
Thanks,
Sergio.
2005 Apr 30
0
[LLVMdev] IntervalPartition bug?
...you get something that looks right, let me know and I'll apply
it :)
> On a related note, I'm a bit surprised that 2-nd order partition consists of
> basic blocks. I'd more expect that it consisted of Interval's. As it stands,
> it's not easy to tell which 1-st order invervals are contained in a given
> 2-nd order interval.
That does seem strange. If you would like to change/refactor this code,
feel free.
-Chris
--
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/
2005 Apr 29
2
[LLVMdev] IntervalPartition bug?
...' is after the change.
I must admit the change does not look 100% right to me yet.
On a related note, I'm a bit surprised that 2-nd order partition consists of
basic blocks. I'd more expect that it consisted of Interval's. As it stands,
it's not easy to tell which 1-st order invervals are contained in a given
2-nd order interval.
- Volodya
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IntervalPartition.diff
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 1456 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20050429/396...
2005 May 04
1
[LLVMdev] IntervalPartition bug?
...looks right, let me know and I'll apply
> it :)
>
> > On a related note, I'm a bit surprised that 2-nd order partition consists
> > of basic blocks. I'd more expect that it consisted of Interval's. As it
> > stands, it's not easy to tell which 1-st order invervals are contained in
> > a given 2-nd order interval.
>
> That does seem strange. If you would like to change/refactor this code,
> feel free.
Okay. I've done first round of refactoring and currently writing some code of
mine that uses IntervalPartition which should uncover any...