search for: orthognal

Hey, R-listers, I have a question about determining the orthogonal basis vectors. In the d-dimensinonal space, if I already know the first r orthogonal basis vectors, should I be able to determine the remaining d-r orthognal basis vectors automatically? Or the answer is not unique? Thanks for your attention. Fred

Dear all, I am fitting a multivariate linear model with 7 response variables and 1 explanatory variable. The following matrix P: P <- cbind( c(1,-1,0,0,0,0,0), c(2,2,2,2,2,-5,-5), c(1,0,0,-1,0,0,0), c(-2,-2,0,-2,2,2,2), c(-2,1,0,1,0,0,0), c(0,-1,0,1,0,0,0)) should consist of orthogonal elements (as can be shown using %*% on the individual columns). However, when I use

...the invalid transformation until this new optimization technique is > available. We should be fixing the bug now, and then figuring out how to do > privatization. > Isn't privatization one way to get correctness? Other techniques such as hash based de-dup or use PGO etc for tuning are orthognal methods to reduce the overall cost of the former. David > > -Chandler > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160226/fd96d0dc/attachment.html>

...mation until this new optimization > > technique is available. We should be fixing the bug now, and then > > figuring out how to do privatization. > > Isn't privatization one way to get correctness? Other techniques such > as hash based de-dup or use PGO etc for tuning are orthognal methods > to reduce the overall cost of the former. It is, and I agree. However, the code-size growth seems like it could easily be unacceptable even for speed-optimized builds without the kind of mitigation options mentioned. -Hal > David > > -Chandler > -- Hal Finkel Assist...

...until this new optimization technique >> is available. We should be fixing the bug now, and then figuring out how to >> do privatization. >> > > Isn't privatization one way to get correctness? Other techniques such as > hash based de-dup or use PGO etc for tuning are orthognal methods to reduce > the overall cost of the former. > > > It is, and I agree. However, the code-size growth seems like it could > easily be unacceptable even for speed-optimized builds without the kind of > mitigation options mentioned. > Except that there might be icache/itlb...

...bug now, and > > > > then > > > > figuring out how to do privatization. > > > > > > > > > Isn't privatization one way to get correctness? Other techniques > > > such > > > as hash based de-dup or use PGO etc for tuning are orthognal > > > methods > > > to reduce the overall cost of the former. > > > > > It is, and I agree. However, the code-size growth seems like it > > could > > easily be unacceptable even for speed-optimized builds without the > > kind of mitigation option...

...t; figuring out how to do privatization. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't privatization one way to get correctness? Other > > > > techniques > > > > such > > > > as hash based de-dup or use PGO etc for tuning are orthognal > > > > methods > > > > to reduce the overall cost of the former. > > > > > > > > > It is, and I agree. However, the code-size growth seems like it > > > could > > > easily be unacceptable even for speed-optimized builds withou...

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:40 PM Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:15 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> Can you explain your concerns about reliability? My idea is that we have >>> a kind of

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:15 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > >> Can you explain your concerns about reliability? My idea is that we have >> a kind of delayed-name comdat section attribute that says that the name of >> the comdat section into which the function will