search for: inverval

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "inverval".

Did you mean: interval
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/20050429/39646...
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 r...