search for: reanalyze

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "reanalyze".

2013 Mar 05
4
[LLVMdev] Vector splitting vs widening
...s determination. Enhancing the logic there to consider the result types in this case seems like it should be straightforward, but how general a problem is this? [Can this problem only happen with vsetcc nodes?] Maybe, for example, after the ScanOperands part of DAGTypeLegalizer::run, if we need to reanalyze, we should actually run ScanOperands again instead of starting with the result-type processing? Thanks in advance, Hal -- Hal Finkel Postdoctoral Appointee Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory
2013 Mar 05
0
[LLVMdev] Vector splitting vs widening
...nation. Enhancing the logic there to consider the result types in this case seems like it should be straightforward, but how general a problem is this? [Can this problem only happen with vsetcc nodes?] > > Maybe, for example, after the ScanOperands part of DAGTypeLegalizer::run, if we need to reanalyze, we should actually run ScanOperands again instead of starting with the result-type processing? > > Thanks in advance, > Hal >
2005 May 27
1
Testing Nonlinear Restrictions
Dear all, I'm interested in testing 2 nonlinear restrictions on coefficients of a nls object. Is there a package for doing this? Something in the lines of `test(nls object, res=c("res 1","res 2"),...)' I only found the function delta.method in the alr3 library that calculates the se of a singleton nonlinear restriction of a nls object using the delta method. Thanks in
2012 Apr 04
1
[LLVMdev] GSoC2012 proposal -- A new Back-end for polyhedral Optimization framework for LLVM (Polly)
Hi Tobi, Thank you very much for the elaborate advises and sorry for the long delay. I have kept thinking your advises and investigate more detail of the existing code of Polly. Now, I re-evaluate my proposal and something interesting is added to the new one. :) On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > Hi Qingrui Liu, > > sorry for replying