search for: shaving

Defaults to disabled --- .gitignore | 2 + acinclude.m4 | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ configure.ac | 4 +++ shave-libtool.in | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ shave.in | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 5 files changed, 231 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 acinclude.m4

Does anyone know if Hastie's gene shaving method is implemented in R Thanks, Aimin

Hi LLVM Dev, I have an old problem that I've wanted to clean-up for some time. Our chip has gone through a number of iterations in the past few years, but with each revision there have been changes to some of the mnemonics for instructions. These are mostly very simple, for example we had a 32-bit load from memory instruction named 'LD32' in one version of the chip, but for a

I've been curious for a while whether SmallVectors have the right speed/memory tradeoff. It would be straightforward to shave off a couple of pointers (1 pointer/4B on 32-bit; 2 pointers/16B on 64-bit) if users could afford to test for small-mode vs. large-mode. The current scheme works out to something like this: ``` template <class T, size_t SmallCapacity> struct SmallVector { T

...In the interest of the project and to keep development running smoothly, I am resigning my code ownership. Justin Bogner has graciously volunteered to take it up. He has a strong history of LLVM contributions, a demonstrated commitment to good community development practices, and has experience shaving the infinite herd of SelectionDAG yaks. I am happy to recommend Justin take over the SelectionDAG code ownership, pending the approval of the community. —Owen

Hi LLVM-Devs, When I try to configure LLVM v6.0 RC2 (SVN Rev #324869) on Windows (I haven't yet had a chance to try on Linux), I get a series of errors such as this: CMake Error at cmake/modules/AddLLVM.cmake:1333 (add_dependencies): The dependency target "(" of target "check-all" does not exist. Call Stack (most recent call first): CMakeLists.txt:937

Thanks for the quick answer Bruce. So far as I can tell (from a quick read), this is really for integrated assemblers/disassemblers - but we use an external assembler. When invoking clang we would provide ‘-mcpu=chip_v1’ or ‘-mcpu=chip_v2’, and the mnemonic ‘LD32’ is only valid when compiling for ‘chip_v1’, while ‘LD.32’ is only valid when compiling for ‘chip_v2’. But I will study the

Maybe it's caused by the space after the X86 argument? Can you try removing all the -D flags, and see if that works? Then add them one by one to see which is the culprit? -Dimitry > On 17 Feb 2018, at 23:11, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi LLVM-Devs, > > When I try to configure LLVM v6.0 RC2 (SVN Rev #324869) on Windows

I'm sure there must be various peak-finding algorithms out there. Not knowing of any, I have written one myself*, but I thought I'd ask to see what's out there. Basically, I have a 2-dimensional data set and I want to identify local peaks in the data, while ignoring "trivial" peaks. My naive algorithm first identifies every peak and valley (point of inflection change

On May 3, 2011, at 4:08 PM, David A. Greene wrote: >> >> It's just that an REX prefix is required on some instructions when >> %xmm8 is used. Is it worth it to undo LICM just for that? In this >> case, probably. In general, no. > > Ah, so you're saying the regression is due to the inner loop icache > footprint increasing. Ok, that makes total sense to

Hello list, I have two data frames, X (48469,2) and Y (79771,5). X[,1] contains distinct values of Y[,2]. I want to match values in X[,1] and Y[,2], then take the corresponding value in [X,2] and place it in Y[,4]. So far I have been doing it like so: for(i in 1:48469) { y[which(x[i,1]==y[,3]),4]<-x[i,2] } But it chunks along so very slowly that I can't help but wonder if there's a

I have been able to adapt the main LLVM sources to work with vectors of 16 x FP16 values and I have introduced the 'v16f16' data type to CLang and LLVM, but I am stumped on how to get TableGen to recognise this type. At the moment I am trying to optimise the calling convention code, and whenever I refer to 'v16f16' I get a crash in TableGen (unrecognised type). Unfortunately I

> On 2014 Oct 16, at 22:09, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > Dig into this first! This isn't the right forum for digging into ld64. > In the OP you are talking about essentially a pure "optimization" (in the programmer-wisdom "beware of it" sense), to "save" 2GB of peak memory. But from your analysis it's not clear that

...client 1m timeout server 1m timeout check 10s server rabbit01 10.0.2.15:55672,10.0.2.15:5672 check listen messaging00 10.0.2.15:55672,10.0.2.15:5672 balance roundrobin mode tcp option tcplog option tcpka Any help would be GREATLY appreciated ... I''ve done much yak shaving to get this far and this is the last piece to give me the sweet setup I am looking for. :) Thanks, James -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email...

>> On Jun 21, 2018, at 18:38, Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Jun 21, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> I've been curious for a while whether SmallVectors have the right speed/memory tradeoff. It would be straightforward to shave off a couple of

I am trying to implement stack probes for our SHAVE target, and I see that the compiler injects references to '__stack_chk_guard' and '__stack_chk_fail'. The code that gets generated is horribly wrong, but in order to understand how to fix it I was wondering if there is a clear statement of how the mechanism is supposed to work? The variable '__stack_chk_guard' appears

...specifically suggest an alternative that might be both easier to use, and naturally dovetail with an upcoming standard. =/ Is there no interest in this? I'm happy to contribute an implementation using this API (we'll need to implement it anyways), but I'm actually not interested in just shaving yaks. I'm interested in getting a really good API here, because this is the support library that is usually held to a very high bar for APIs... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120218/09dd0...

This shaves about 20% off the compile time for the daemon subdirectory. See also: https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/make-and-queuing-theory/#content --- daemon/Makefile.am | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/daemon/Makefile.am b/daemon/Makefile.am index 1d29a0f..4ea3c88 100644 --- a/daemon/Makefile.am +++ b/daemon/Makefile.am @@ -76,7 +76,11 @@ else

For some reason all documentation lists the max rice partition order to be 16, while the maximum is 15. This fixes thee HTML online documentation --- documentation_tools_flac.html | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/documentation_tools_flac.html b/documentation_tools_flac.html index bc1f2b8..5100cb4 100644 --- a/documentation_tools_flac.html +++

Hi, I noticed recently that require ''rspec'' on my machine was taking close to half a second. That''s not a huge amount of time, but it is still the single slowest part of my test suite. It boils down to Ruby 1.9''s rather slow require. I''m using 1.9.3, but I''d still like to shave off some of the require time. As an experiment, I went into