search for: monomorphic

...snp1=c("A","G", "G"),snp2=c("G","G","G"),snp3=c("G","G","A")) > x id snp1 snp2 snp3 1 1 A G G 2 2 G G G 3 3 G G A Now I want to know that snp2 in monomorphic (the same value for the column) and after I know which column it is I want to take these columns out. Thanks, Naomi Disclaimer: De informatie opgenomen in dit bericht (en bijlagen) kan vertrouwelijk zijn en is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde(n). Indien...

Hi, Can anybody show me how to extract all columns in my dataset that are polymorphic? Or phrased in another way I would like to delete all columns that have no more than one letter in it (that are monomorphic). Thank you. Laetitia -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: seqCol.txt URL: <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/20100828/381c0468/attachment.txt> -------------- next part --------------

...el's patch would make this a non-issue. He's making scanRelocs to create data, which would reduce the number of calls to the virtual functions, but it wouldn't be reduced to zero. However, even in the current scheme, since the target is fixed, all the > indirect call sites should be monomorphic and so there shouldn't be much > branch-prediction cost (certainly nothing that would cause 1.8% performance > delta for the entire link). > Agreed. We could template functions that call TargetInfo's member functions for each target to eliminate the virtual function calls. >...

I believe the relocation stuff that Rafael is currently working on will make this a non-issue (it will make relocation application much friendlier for the CPU). However, even in the current scheme, since the target is fixed, all the indirect call sites should be monomorphic and so there shouldn't be much branch-prediction cost (certainly nothing that would cause 1.8% performance delta for the entire link). Notice that 1.8% is smaller than the performance variation from r263227 which is a very innocuous-looking change but caused ~2-3% slowdown for ScyllaDB (see th...

Hi, The IRBuilder is currently templated over a constant folder, and an instruction inserter. https://reviews.llvm.org/D73835 proposes to move this towards using virtual dispatch instead. As this is a larger design change, I would like to get some feedback on this. The current templated design of IRBuilder has a couple of problems: 1. It's not possible to share code between use-sites that

I was wandering how much is the overhead of virtual function calls of TargetInfo member functions. TargetInfo handles platform-specific details, and we have target-specific subclasses of that class. The subclasses override functions defined in TargetInfo. The TargetInfo member functions are called multiple times for each relocation. So the cost of virtual function calls may be non-neglible. That

Hi Nikita, Glad to hear that Rust code can benefit a lot from this. I have put patches to enable merge-similar functions with thinLTO. https://reviews.llvm.org/D52896 etc. <https://reviews.llvm.org/D52896> This is more powerful than existing merge-functions pass and all we need to do is port these patches to trunk llvm. I'd be happy to help with this effort. -Aditya

...9;s patch would make this a non-issue. He's making scanRelocs to create data, which would reduce the number of calls to the virtual functions, but it wouldn't be reduced to zero. > > However, even in the current scheme, since the target is fixed, all the indirect call sites should be monomorphic and so there shouldn't be much branch-prediction cost (certainly nothing that would cause 1.8% performance delta for the entire link). > > Agreed. We could template functions that call TargetInfo's member functions for each target to eliminate the virtual function calls. Are you mea...

...ke this a non-issue. He's making > scanRelocs to create data, which would reduce the number of calls to the > virtual functions, but it wouldn't be reduced to zero. > > However, even in the current scheme, since the target is fixed, all the >> indirect call sites should be monomorphic and so there shouldn't be much >> branch-prediction cost (certainly nothing that would cause 1.8% performance >> delta for the entire link). >> > > Agreed. We could template functions that call TargetInfo's member > functions for each target to eliminate the virtu...

...He's making >> scanRelocs to create data, which would reduce the number of calls to the >> virtual functions, but it wouldn't be reduced to zero. >> >> However, even in the current scheme, since the target is fixed, all the >>> indirect call sites should be monomorphic and so there shouldn't be much >>> branch-prediction cost (certainly nothing that would cause 1.8% performance >>> delta for the entire link). >>> >> >> Agreed. We could template functions that call TargetInfo's member >> functions for each targe...

...;>> scanRelocs to create data, which would reduce the number of calls to the >>> virtual functions, but it wouldn't be reduced to zero. >>> >>> However, even in the current scheme, since the target is fixed, all the >>>> indirect call sites should be monomorphic and so there shouldn't be much >>>> branch-prediction cost (certainly nothing that would cause 1.8% performance >>>> delta for the entire link). >>>> >>> >>> Agreed. We could template functions that call TargetInfo's member >>>...

...oing is trying to resolve a symbolic reference to a function from a call site which has been devirtualized by the compiler. Rather than saving what the devirtualized callee actually was, all the (LLVM based) in-memory compiler does is save a bit indicating that it proved the given call site was monomorphic. In LLVM, the call is represented as a patchable callsite using statepoints (could also be a patchpoint). Before actually running the code in question, we patch over the generated code with a call to a helper routine which knows how to resolve the actual callee and patch the direct call targe...

...ince the JIT compiler is available at runtime, libraries and embedded domain specific languages can use it to dynamically generate or auto-tune arbitrary high performance code with custom optimizations. Terra is backwards compatible with (and embeddable in) existing C code and is likewise a small, monomorphic, statically-typed, compiled language with manual memory management. There is also built-in support for SIMD operations and other low-level features like non-temporal writes and prefetches. Terra can optionally run independently from LuaJIT and LLVM. In fact, if your final program doesn’t need Lua,...

Hi, Just had a simple question , The use-def and def-use chains provided by llvm::Value class , would they work for IR that has not been optimized by the "mem2reg" pass ? ( ie, IR code that contains memory interactions and is not in SSA form yet ) Thanks, Malhar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I'm interested in finding ways to reduce code size. LLVM's MergeFunctions pass seems like a promising option, and I'm curious about its status in tree. Enabling MergeFunctions gives a 1% code size reduction across the entire iOS shared cache (a collection of a few hundred system-critical DSO's). The numbers are even more compelling for Swift code. In fact, the swift compiler

...locs to create data, which would reduce the number of calls to the >>>> virtual functions, but it wouldn't be reduced to zero. >>>> >>>> However, even in the current scheme, since the target is fixed, all the >>>>> indirect call sites should be monomorphic and so there shouldn't be much >>>>> branch-prediction cost (certainly nothing that would cause 1.8% performance >>>>> delta for the entire link). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Agreed. We could template functions that call TargetInfo's...

The skinny is that I''m attempting to add "Discussions" as resources under different resources ("Groups", "Projects", for example) and I''ve simply hit a roadblock (or two). Discussions are an association between the "discussable" (Group, Project, etc.) and a "Topic" so: class Discussion < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :topic

I could understand a TLB hit if functions that originally happened to be on the same page were spread across many pages, raising the iTLB footprint for a given loop, etc. (reduced spatial locality). For pagerando, since we're splitting on 4k page boundaries and can keep spatial locality (or attempt to improve it), I'm not sure that TLB misses will be a large factor. I expect that the

Hi All, I've been having a little trouble with creating a loop that will run a a series of t.tests for inspection, Below is the code i've tried, and some checks i've looked at. I've used the get(paste()) idea as i was told previously that the use of the eval should try and be avoided. I've run a single syntax to check that my systax is correct and works without any problems