search for: monomorphizing

Hi Readers, I have a question. I have a large dataset and want to throw away columns that have the same value in the column itself and I want to know which column this was. For example > x<-data.frame(id=c(1,2,3), snp1=c("A","G", "G"),snp2=c("G","G","G"),snp3=c("G","G","A"))

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:

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > 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). > I don't think Rafael's patch would make this a non-issue. He's making scanRelocs to create data, which would reduce the

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

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

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com <mailto:chisophugis at gmail.com>> wrote: > 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).

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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). >> > > I don't think

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I believe the relocation stuff that Rafael is currently working on will >>> make

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> >>> wrote:

TLDR - I have a runtime which expects to be able to inspect certain arguments to a function even if that argument isn't used within the callee itself. DeadArgumentElimination doesn't respect this today. I want to add an argument that records an argument to a call as live even if the value is known to be not used in the callee. My use case ----------------- What my runtime is doing

Terra: A low-level counterpart to Lua By Zach DeVito (http://cs.stanford.edu/~zdevito) Terra (http://terralang.org/) is a system programming language that is embedded in and meta-programmed by Lua, which handles details like conditional compilation, type systems, namespaces, and templating/function specialization that are normally special constructs in other languages. Terra code shares

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

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at

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