search for: stage4

...mple than the title suggests, please read carefully, thanks. I have 2 sets of data, both read into R >data1<-read.table ("1.txt", header=T, sep="\t") >data2<-read.table ("2.txt", header=T, sep="\t") >data1 Taxon stage1 stage2 stage3 stage4 T1 0 0 1 1 T2 0 1 1 0 T3 0 0 0 1 T4 1 0 0 0 >data2 # this is a library file, it contains all possible values of stage (Col_1) that may be contained in...

...lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-with-thin-lto-ubuntu/builds/9803 >> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-with-lto-ubuntu/builds/8173 >> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lld-x86_64-freebsd/builds/18082 > Note what *specifically* failed: > * compare-compilers compare stage3 and stage4 compilers failed ( 0 secs ) > * compare-tablegen-inc-files compare stage3 and stage4 Tablegen inc > files failed ( 1 secs ) > > I.e. it wasn't tests that failed. Failing that tests means the compiler doesn't produce deterministic output because the stage3 and stage 4 compiler...

...ones: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-with-thin-lto-ubuntu/builds/9803 > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-with-lto-ubuntu/builds/8173 > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lld-x86_64-freebsd/builds/18082 Note what *specifically* failed: * compare-compilers compare stage3 and stage4 compilers failed ( 0 secs ) * compare-tablegen-inc-files compare stage3 and stage4 Tablegen inc files failed ( 1 secs ) I.e. it wasn't tests that failed. > I reverted the change (r330180), but now I’m stuck with how to proceed with > it, as I can’t reproduce any of these. > > So f...

...1/builders/clang-with-thin-lto-ubuntu/builds/9803 >>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-with-lto-ubuntu/builds/8173 >>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lld-x86_64-freebsd/builds/18082 >> Note what *specifically* failed: >> * compare-compilers compare stage3 and stage4 compilers failed ( 0 secs ) >> * compare-tablegen-inc-files compare stage3 and stage4 Tablegen inc >> files failed ( 1 secs ) >> >> I.e. it wasn't tests that failed. > > Failing that tests means the compiler doesn't produce deterministic output because the st...

Hi, Recently I committed a change (r330175) that passed all my testing, but failed on several bots. Namely, these are the failed ones: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-with-thin-lto-ubuntu/builds/9803 <http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-with-thin-lto-ubuntu/builds/9803> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-with-lto-ubuntu/builds/8173

...re the failed ones: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-with-thin-lto-ubuntu/builds/9803 http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-with-lto-ubuntu/builds/8173 http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/lld-x86_64-freebsd/builds/18082 Note what *specifically* failed: * compare-compilers compare stage3 and stage4 compilers failed ( 0 secs ) * compare-tablegen-inc-files compare stage3 and stage4 Tablegen inc files failed ( 1 secs ) I.e. it wasn't tests that failed. Failing that tests means the compiler doesn't produce deterministic output because the stage3 and stage 4 compiler has to be the same....

On 26/01/15 15:16, Paul Littlefield wrote: > On 26/01/15 15:08, Rowland Penny wrote: >> Yes, set up a new DC with your new OS and join this to the domain, >> once up and running, transfer the seven (yes, there are 7) FSMO roles >> to the new DC. Once everything is running ok, turn off the old DC and >> remove *all* mention of it from the domain. > > Hi Rowland

...hat in the short term, that is all you can do. > >OK. > >Thanks for everyone's input. > >I am now off to have a look at http://relax-and-recover.org to P2V... > >...unless someone knows a full-proof verified way of cloning a >software raid Gentoo system, instead of a stage4 tarball? > >:) > >-- > >Paul Littlefield > >Telephone: 07801 125705 >Email: info at paully.co.uk >Web: http://www.paully.co.uk >Twitter: https://twitter.com/paullittlefield >Wiki: http://wiki.indie-it.com/index.php?title=Special:AllPages >Blog: http://www.lit...

...> pbc$stage <- factor(pbc$stage) > (fit <- coxph(Surv(time,status==2)~stage,data=pbc)) Call: coxph(formula = Surv(time, status == 2) ~ stage, data = pbc) coef exp(coef) se(coef) z p stage2 1.10 3.01 0.737 1.50 0.13000 stage3 1.53 4.63 0.722 2.12 0.03400 stage4 2.53 12.57 0.717 3.53 0.00041 Likelihood ratio test=65.1 on 3 df, p=4.84e-14 n=412 (6 observations deleted due to missingness) > summary(glht(fit,linfct=mcp(stage="Tukey"),alternative="g")) Simultaneous Tests for General Linear Hypotheses Multiple Comparisons o...

...ofsteps)), Y.model) I have two questions 1) The flu season usually starts in early September and it usually peaks during the last week of December or the first week of January. The following are the stages Stage1 - September, October Stage2 - November, December Stage3 - January, February Stage4 - March, April The dlmModSeas captures this seasonality very well. But what do I do to forecast an off season wave that has the same stages as above. Say it starts in May and it peaks at end of August or early September. I am able to get the information of this off season wave from the user durin...

...;kaplan-meier") sumkap <- summary(kapmeier.fit) attributes(kapmeier.fit) attributes(sumkap) plot(kapmeier.fit, lty=2:3, fun="cumhaz",  xlab="Months",ylab="Cumulative Hazard of death")  legend(4,.4,c("stage1","stage2","stage3","stage4"),lty=1:2) plot(kapmeier.fit, lty=2:3,  xlab="Months",ylab="Survival Function")  #construct a data frame for the plots plotdata <- data.frame(time = sumkap$time, surv = sumkap$surv, strata = sumkap$strata) fact.stage<-factor(larynx$stage) fit1<-coxph(Surv(time, de...

...ot;kaplan-meier") sumkap <- summary(kapmeier.fit) attributes(kapmeier.fit) attributes(sumkap) plot(kapmeier.fit, lty=2:3, fun="cumhaz", xlab="Months",ylab="Cumulative Hazard of death") legend(4,.4,c("stage1","stage2","stage3","stage4"),lty=1:2) plot(kapmeier.fit, lty=2:3, xlab="Months",ylab="Survival Function") #construct a data frame for the plots plotdata <- data.frame(time = sumkap$time, surv = sumkap$surv, strata = sumkap$strata) fact.stage<-factor(larynx$stage) fit1<-coxph(Surv(time, dea...

...a Polly performance tester and integrate the automation testing environment. > * Stage2 (1 week): collect and analyze the detailed profiling information for Polly compile process; > * Stage3 (3 weeks): revise and improve some expensive Polly passes or LLVM passes that Polly depends on; > * Stage4 (3 weeks): revise canonicalization passes of Polly and try to remove most of canonicalization passes; > * Stage5 (1 week): revise the pass ordering problem and let Polly bail out if it cannot benefit programs; > * Stage6 (1 week): revise and improve Polly code generation passes; > * Stage7...

Dear Tobias, Thank you very much for your very helpful advice. Yes, -debug-pass and -time-passes are two very useful and powerful options when evaluating the compile-time of each compiler pass. They are exactly what I need! With these options, I can step into details of the compile-time overhead of each pass. I have finished some preliminary testing based on two randomly selected files from

On 04/30/2013 04:13 PM, Star Tan wrote: > Hi all, [...] > How could I find out where the time is spent on between two adjacent Polly passes? Can anyone give me some advice? Hi Star Tan, I propose to do the performance analysis using the 'opt' tool and optimizing LLVM-IR, instead of running it from within clang. For the 'opt' tool there are two commands that should help

...ormance tester and integrate the automation testing environment. >> * Stage2 (1 week): collect and analyze the detailed profiling information for Polly compile process; >> * Stage3 (3 weeks): revise and improve some expensive Polly passes or LLVM passes that Polly depends on; >> * Stage4 (3 weeks): revise canonicalization passes of Polly and try to remove most of canonicalization passes; >> * Stage5 (1 week): revise the pass ordering problem and let Polly bail out if it cannot benefit programs; >> * Stage6 (1 week): revise and improve Polly code generation passes; >&...

On 04/26/2013 05:08 AM, tanmx_star wrote: > Hi all, Hi, thanks for the update and sorry for the delay in reviewing. I just had a look at your proposal. > I have updated my GSoS proposal: "FastPolly: Reducing LLVM-Polly Compiling overhead" (https://gist.github.com/tanstar/5441808). I think the pass ordering problem you discussed early can be also investigated in this project!

Hi all, I have updated my GSoS proposal: "FastPolly: Reducing LLVM-Polly Compiling overhead" (https://gist.github.com/tanstar/5441808). I think the pass ordering problem you discussed early can be also investigated in this project! Is there any comment or advice about my proposal? I appreciate all your help and advice. Thanks, Star Tan Proposal: