search for: suummary

...plfp ~ -1 + bmrd4 + bmsd4 + wmrd4 + wmsd4 + bfrd4 + bfsd4 + wfrd4 + wfsd4 + y4yrsed + y4age + y4age2, data=PLFPANAL, random=~ bm4 + wm4 + bf4 + wf4 | state, family=binomial, weights=wt1) summary(fm1) q END OF EXCERPT FROM COMMAND FILE I bet the "suummary(fm1)" line is wrong, it was apparently a holdover from some other code I tried to emulate. At any rate, what do I do to get the output? Have I done enough? Is something else required? Assistance or reassurance greatly appreciated! Thanks. Sam

On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 11:49 PM John McCall <jmccall at apple.com> wrote: > Piotr's proposal unfortunately doesn't give us a good name for the class > of optimizations that require being listed in supported_optimizations. > In earlier discussions I called them "brittle", but I can understand why > nobody wants to call their optimization that, so let's call

...me page, if this was all there > is we would not need this attribute right? All LLVM optimizations do > need to preserve semantics and structural properties anyway? > > We need this attribute because interprocedural optimizations otherwise > break good-faith optimizations, so yes, my suummary here is missing some > qualification (that I included in the next paragraph, but with a slightly > different spin). So let me restate this. > > The designer of a good-faith optimization can rely on this: > > - other transforms will preserve the apparent semantics of the >...

...if this was all there > is we would not need this attribute right? All LLVM optimizations do > need to preserve semantics and structural properties anyway? > > We need this attribute because interprocedural optimizations otherwise > break good-faith optimizations, so yes, my suummary here is missing some > qualification (that I included in the next paragraph, but with a slightly > different spin). So let me restate this. > > The designer of a good-faith optimization can rely on this: > > * other transforms will preserve the apparent semantics of the function...