search for: lowerbounds

Dear LLVM, Consider two loops with one interation - First with constant lower bound, second with usual non-constant lower bound: int main(int argc, char ** argv) { int numOfIterations= 1; int stride=1; int lowerBound = 1000; - 1st | int lowerBound = argc; - 2nd int upperBound = lowerBound + (numOfIterations - 1)*stride; int i = lowerBound;

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at googlemail.com> wrote: > > On 27.02.2012, at 17:13, Николай Лихогруд wrote: > >> Dear LLVM, >> >>     Consider two loops with one interation - >>     First with constant lower bound, second with usual non-constant lower bound: >> >>     int main(int argc, char ** argv) >>     {

On 27.02.2012, at 17:13, Николай Лихогруд wrote: > Dear LLVM, > > Consider two loops with one interation - > First with constant lower bound, second with usual non-constant lower bound: > > int main(int argc, char ** argv) > { > int numOfIterations= 1; > int stride=1; > int lowerBound = 1000; - 1st | int lowerBound =

On 27.02.2012, at 18:49, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Benjamin Kramer > <benny.kra at googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> On 27.02.2012, at 17:13, Николай Лихогруд wrote: >> >>> Dear LLVM, >>> >>> Consider two loops with one interation - >>> First with constant lower bound, second with usual

...insaw that can as easily cut your arm off as saw a log. JN On 05/01/2012 06:00 AM, r-help-request at r-project.org wrote: > Message: 54 Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:30:24 -0700 (PDT) From: barb <mainzel89 at hotmail.com> > To: r-help at r-project.org Subject: [R] Optim (fct): Parameters=LowerBounds!? Message-ID: > <1335799824557-4598504.post at n4.nabble.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hey, i > am trying to do the MLE for Garch and have a problem with the optim function. Initally i > tried optim with Method=BFGS. Reading trhough the forum i found out i would neet b...

...how to do that in optim. Mo.vect <- as.vector(tail(head(mo,i),1)) wgt.vect <- as.vector(tail(head(moWeightsMax,i),1)) cov.mat <- cov(tail(head(morets,i+12),12)) opt.fun <- function(wgt.vect) -sum(Mo.vect %*% wgt.vect) / (t(wgt.vect) %*% (cov.mat %*% wgt.vect)) LowerBounds<-c(0.2,0.05,0.1,0,0,0) UpperBounds<-c(0.6,0.3,0.6,0.15,0.1,0.2) OptimSolution<-optim(wgt.vect, fn=opt.fun, method="L-BFGS-B",lower=LowerBounds,upper=UpperBounds) Any thoughts are appreciated! Mike Michael Ashton, CFA Managing Principal Enduring Investments LLC W:...

I am investigating changing BoundsChecking to use address-based rather than size- & offset-based tests. To explain, here is a short code sample cribbed from one of the tests: %mem = tail call i8* @calloc(i64 1, i64 %elements) %memobj = bitcast i8* %mem to i64* %ptr = getelementptr inbounds i64* %memobj, i64 %index %4 = load i64* %ptr, align 8 Currently, the IR for bounds checking

...; Mo.vect <- as.vector(tail(head(mo,i),1)) > wgt.vect <- as.vector(tail(head(moWeightsMax,i),1)) > cov.mat <- cov(tail(head(morets,i+12),12)) > opt.fun <- function(wgt.vect) -sum(Mo.vect %*% wgt.vect) / (t(wgt.vect) %*% (cov.mat %*% wgt.vect)) > > LowerBounds<-c(0.2,0.05,0.1,0,0,0) > UpperBounds<-c(0.6,0.3,0.6,0.15,0.1,0.2) > > OptimSolution<-optim(wgt.vect, fn=opt.fun, method="L-BFGS-B",lower=LowerBounds,upper=UpperBounds) > > > Any thoughts are appreciated! > > Mike > > Michael Ashton, CFA &gt...

Hi Kevin, Thanks for your interest and for your deep analysis. Unfortunately, your approach doesn't catch all bugs and is vulnerable to an attack. Consider the following case: ...................... | ----- obj --- | | end ^ ptr ^ ^ end-of-memory The scenario is as follows: - an object is allocated in the last page of the address space - obj is byte

...t;- as.vector(tail(head(mo,i),1)) >> wgt.vect <- as.vector(tail(head(moWeightsMax,i),1)) >> cov.mat <- cov(tail(head(morets,i+12),12)) >> opt.fun <- function(wgt.vect) -sum(Mo.vect %*% wgt.vect) / (t(wgt.vect) %*% (cov.mat %*% wgt.vect)) >> >> LowerBounds<-c(0.2,0.05,0.1,0,0,0) >> UpperBounds<-c(0.6,0.3,0.6,0.15,0.1,0.2) >> >> OptimSolution<-optim(wgt.vect, fn=opt.fun, method="L-BFGS-B",lower=LowerBounds,upper=UpperBounds) >> >> >> Any thoughts are appreciated! >> >> Mike...

Nuno, Inspired by this email thread, I spent a bit of time today looking through the implementation of BoundsChecking::instrument(..). Based on my reading of prior work, it should be possible to do these checks in two comparisons, or possibly even one if the right assumptions could be made. Could you provide a bit of background of the expected domains of Size and Offset? In particular,

Well, we are getting somewere...;) >It is probably 'greyed' out because no Windows tools use it or will add it. You will probably need to use Unix tools (ldb or ldap) to remove>them, but you can if you so wish ignore them. What you should never do is to rely on them being there, because they may or may not be there.Ok, I'll let it be there> You need to remove the gidNumber

*From:* flang-dev <flang-dev-bounces at lists.flang-compiler.org> *On Behalf Of *Eric Schweitz (PGI) *Sent:* Thursday, November 01, 2018 1:02 PM *To:* flang-dev at lists.flang-compiler.org *Subject:* [Flang-dev] RFC: Adding debug information to LLVM to support Fortran In order to support debugging in the Flang project, work has been done to extend LLVM debug information for the Fortran

...head(mo,i),1)) >>> wgt.vect <- as.vector(tail(head(moWeightsMax,i),1)) >>> cov.mat <- cov(tail(head(morets,i+12),12)) >>> opt.fun <- function(wgt.vect) -sum(Mo.vect %*% wgt.vect) / (t(wgt.vect) %*% (cov.mat %*% wgt.vect)) >>> >>> LowerBounds<-c(0.2,0.05,0.1,0,0,0) >>> UpperBounds<-c(0.6,0.3,0.6,0.15,0.1,0.2) >>> >>> OptimSolution<-optim(wgt.vect, fn=opt.fun, method="L-BFGS-B",lower=LowerBounds,upper=UpperBounds) >>> >>> >>> Any thoughts are appreciated! &g...

...t; wgt.vect <- as.vector(tail(head(moWeightsMax,i),1)) > >>> cov.mat <- cov(tail(head(morets,i+12),12)) > >>> opt.fun <- function(wgt.vect) -sum(Mo.vect %*% wgt.vect) / > (t(wgt.vect) %*% (cov.mat %*% wgt.vect)) > >>> > >>> LowerBounds<-c(0.2,0.05,0.1,0,0,0) > >>> UpperBounds<-c(0.6,0.3,0.6,0.15,0.1,0.2) > >>> > >>> OptimSolution<-optim(wgt.vect, fn=opt.fun, method="L-BFGS-B",lower= > LowerBounds,upper=UpperBounds) > >>> > >>> > >>&...

Hi, You can use the projectLinear argument in BB::spg to optimize with linear equality/inequality constraints. Here is how you implement the constraint that all parameters sum to 1. require(BB) spg(par=p0, fn=myFn, project="projectLinear", projectArgs=list(A=matrix(1, 1, length(p0)), b=1, meq=1)) Hope this is helpful, Ravi [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi, To improve debug information for variable length arrays (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30553) I have proposed some changes to Metadata IR's DISubrange node. To get some wider visibility on this, I'm sharing this as an RFC with llvm-dev. The proposed change is to extend the 'count' field to also accept a Metadata node, rather than only accepting a signed integer. For

Hi, > Could you provide a bit of background of the expected domains of Size and > Offset? In particular, are they signed or unsigned integers? A > non-negative size doesn't seem to make much sense in this context, but > depending on how it's calculated I could see it arising. Is a zero Size > something that might arise here? I'm assuming the Offset comes from an

Regarding flags, I was just thinking that maybe we should invent a new DISubprogramFlags type. DISubprogram already has a few bitfields for subprogram-specific things, Fortran will want 3 more, and there's no reason to fill up the generic DIFlags with more bits that are used in only one class. I agree that the array stuff needs to be designed with an eye to handling how other languages do

Dear R-users I intend to create a function which calls some smaller other functions in return. Some of these smaller functions all call some functions. I do not know a good way to do this. I tried using the source() function to include the smaller functions within the main functions before they are called. This does not work, or maybe i am not doing the right thing. For example: the