search for: investiaged

...?) ------------- My concern/thoughts - When we swap out STDCXX for libc++ - We aren't able to self host clang. This could be entirely *our* fault, but it hasn't been investigated extensively. (We also see Perennial C++ testsuite regressions which appear to come from libc++, but also not investiaged/confirmed) Having a sunrise period would allow us to investigate this as well as report any potentially blocking problems. Having a gnu-free self hosting[1] policy attached to this would also be great - that makes a potentially easier backup solution to anyone on [linux] with older gnu compiler...

...ing to address. Certainly, the platforms with only libc++ are self hosting clang successfully today. > This could be entirely *our* fault, but it hasn't been investigated > extensively. (We also see Perennial C++ testsuite regressions which appear > to come from libc++, but also not investiaged/confirmed) Having a sunrise > period would allow us to investigate this as well as report any potentially > blocking problems. > > Having a gnu-free self hosting[1] policy attached to this would also be > great - that makes a potentially easier backup solution to anyone on > [linu...

Greetings, I'm working on some analyses where I need to calculate wilcox tests for paired samples. In my current literature search I've found a few papers on sample size determination for the wilcox test notably: Sample Size Determination for Some Common Nonparametric Tests Gottfried E. Noether Journal of the American Statistical Association

Focusing on one comment: On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Brooks Davis <brooks at freebsd.org> wrote: > Today you could probably pick a somewhat newer > Clang than 3.1 without much real impact on us, but it would hurt to have > the requirements change with every release. From our perspective it's > much better to change no more than every two years or so. > I think

...> My concern/thoughts - When we swap out STDCXX for libc++ - We aren't able > to self host clang. This could be entirely *our* fault, but it hasn't been > investigated extensively. (We also see Perennial C++ testsuite regressions > which appear to come from libc++, but also not investiaged/confirmed) > Having a sunrise period would allow us to investigate this as well as > report any potentially blocking problems. > [As an aside: I use libc++ for my Clang development (on Ubuntu Linux), and it works for me (tm). This is with libstdc++ providing the ABI pieces, rather than li...

Hi, This probably isn't significant evidence about using svn as the authoritative revision control system for llvm but more just to point out that the svn users tend to consider that the only thing one would use revision control for is the mainstream development history tracking. I'll note that I during working ("development" but also bug-fixing and experimentation) since the

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 02:31:10PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Oct 28, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > > One thing I want to call out: > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > I suppose what I'm saying is that we are currently not using *any*

...rms with only libc++ are self hosting clang > successfully today. Hmm.... > > This could be entirely *our* fault, but it hasn't been > investigated extensively. (We also see Perennial C++ testsuite > regressions which appear to come from libc++, but also not > investiaged/confirmed) Having a sunrise period would allow us to > investigate this as well as report any potentially blocking problems. > > Having a gnu-free self hosting[1] policy attached to this would > also be great - that makes a potentially easier backup solution to > anyo...

The thing about this is that git-svn (un?)fortunately works so well that you can get all of these benefits with the main repo still in SVN. Hence, it is really a moot point regarding a switch to git for the main repo. E.g.: > Actually that's true today with svn. We have a ton of changes here we'd > like to submit but the process is really painful. Is there any difference from the

..., but gcc is not smart enough to optimize this out when optimizations ARE enabled. - It appears clang requires us to do this always (which is fair, since - technically the compiler is always allowed to do the dereference before - invoking the function implementing the intrinsic). I have not investiaged - whether it is any smarter than gcc when it comes to eliminating the extra - load instruction.*/ + Clang, in contrast, requires us to do this always for _mm_cvtepi8_epi32 + (which is fair, since technically the compiler is always allowed to do the + dereference before invoking the function im...

..., but gcc is not smart enough to optimize this out when optimizations ARE enabled. - It appears clang requires us to do this always (which is fair, since - technically the compiler is always allowed to do the dereference before - invoking the function implementing the intrinsic). I have not investiaged - whether it is any smarter than gcc when it comes to eliminating the extra - load instruction.*/ + Clang, in contrast, requires us to do this always for _mm_cvtepi8_epi32 + (which is fair, since technically the compiler is always allowed to do the + dereference before invoking the function im...

The attached patch cleans up Opus's x86 intrinsics configury. It: * Makes ?enable-intrinsics work with clang and other non-GCC compilers * Enables RTCD for the floating-point-mode SSE code in Celt. * Disables use of RTCD in cases where the compiler targets an instruction set by default. * Enables the SSE4.1 Silk optimizations that apply to the common parts of Silk when Opus is built in

Hi All, Since I continue to base my work on top of Jonathan's patch, and my previous Ne10 fft/ifft/mdct_forward/backward patches, I thought it would be better to just post all new patches as a patch series. Please let me know if anyone disagrees with this approach. You can see wip branch of all latest patches at https://git.linaro.org/people/viswanath.puttagunta/opus.git Branch:

Hi Timothy, As I mentioned earlier [1], I now fixed compile issues with fixed point and resubmitting the patch. I also have new patch that does intrinsics optimizations for celt_pitch_xcorr targetting aarch64. You can find my latest work-in-progress branch at [2] For reference, you can use the Ne10 pre-built libraries at [3] Note that I am working with Phil at ARM to get my patch at [4]

Hi All, As per Timothy's suggestion, disabling mdct_forward for fixed point. Only effects armv7,armv8: Extend fixed fft NE10 optimizations to mdct Rest of patches are same as in [1] For reference, latest wip code for opus is at [2] Still working with NE10 team at ARM to get corner cases of mdct_forward. Will update with another patch when issue in NE10 gets fixed. Regards, Vish [1]:

Hi All, Changes from RFC v2 [1] armv7,armv8: Extend fixed fft NE10 optimizations to mdct - Overflow issue fixed by Phil at ARM. Ne10 wip at [2]. Should be upstream soon. - So, re-enabled using fixed fft for mdct_forward which was disabled in RFCv2 armv7,armv8: Optimize fixed point fft using NE10 library - Thanks to Jonathan Lennox, fixed some build fixes on iOS and some copy-paste errors Rest

Hello Timothy / Jean-Marc / opus-dev, This patch series is follow up on work I posted on [1]. In addition to what was posted on [1], this patch series mainly integrates Fixed point FFT implementations in NE10 library into opus. You can view my opus wip code at [2]. Note that while I found some issues both with the NE10 library(fixed fft) and with Linaro toolchain (armv8 intrinsics), the work