search for: lver

Friends I'm trying fit a survival model by maximum likelihood estimation using this function: flver=function(a1,a2,b1,b2) { lver=-(sum(st*log(exp(a1*x1+a2*x2)))+sum(st*log(hheft(exp(b1*x1+b2*x2)*t,f.heft))) -(exp(a1*x1+a2*x2)/exp(b1*x1-b2*x2))*sum(-log(1-pheft(exp(b1*x1+b2*x2)*t,f.heft)))) } emv=mle(flver,start=list(a1=0,a2=0,b1=0,b2=0)) where hheft and pheft are functions defined in polspline...

...ich you could > filter to only include checks where the participating pointers come from > different loops. (This is quite similar to LoopDistribution.) > I am happy to add a routine in a subsequent patch that filter the checks. > > Also I don’t think it should be too hard to teach LVer to be able to > version two consecutive loops (or arbitrary CFG?). > I think yes. Instead of Loop Versioning deciding to version, code can be factored out so that it versions unconditionally "also" as requested by the pass that uses it. > > Let me know what you think, > Ad...

Hi all, I have created a patch (up for review at: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17386) that does Loop Fusion implementation. Approach: Legality: Currently it can fuse two adjacent loops whose iteration spaces are same and are at same depth. Dependence legality: Currently, dependence legality cannot be checked across loops. Hence the loops are cloned along a versioned path, unconditionally fused

...erent loops. (This is quite similar to LoopDistribution.) > I am happy to add a routine in a subsequent patch that filter the checks. > Just to clarify, I meant to filter the runtime checks which is currently not done in the patch. > > Also I don’t think it should be too hard to teach LVer to be able to version two consecutive loops (or arbitrary CFG?). > I think yes. Instead of Loop Versioning deciding to version, code can be factored out so that it versions unconditionally "also" as requested by the pass that uses it. > > Let me know what you think, > Adam &...