search for: t1b

Hello R Freaks, I calculate the difference in days between two events with the following litte R expresseion: T1a <- strptime(T1,"%m/%d/%y %H:%M:%S"); T2a <- strptime(T2,"%m/%d/%y %H:%M:%S"); T1b <- as.Date(T1a); T2b <- as.Date(T2a); days <- T2b-T1b; time <- T2a - T1a; In the project I would like to calculate only working day. I the a possibility to count on woring days without weekends? Is it maybe also possible to skip in addition the national holiday dates? Thanks a lit f...

...umeric vectors for a box plot of the residuals of a linear regression. It is performing arithmetic addition on the 16 individual variables that I want individual box plots for. I have 16 race*treatment variables that were created from cleaned data.frames for race and treatment independently: t1W, t1B.....t4W, t4B, t4H, t4O. class(t1W) produces "numeric" (1000 observations of 1's and 0's) To create the box plot I am using boxplot(residuals(IRR)~ treatRace_clean) where I have tried treatRace_clean as both of the following treatRace_clean <- as.factor(as.vector(t1W + t1B +...

I would like to transform X/Y -> X*1/Y. Specifically, I would like to convert: define void @t1a(double %a, double %b, double %d) { entry: %div = fdiv fast double %a, %d %div1 = fdiv fast double %b, %d %call = tail call i32 @foo(double %div, double %div1) ret void } to: define void @t1b(double %a, double %b, double %d) { entry: %div = fdiv fast double 1.000000e+00, %d %mul = fmul fast double %div, %a %mul1 = fmul fast double %div, %b %call = tail call i32 @foo(double %mul, double %mul1) ret void } Is such a transformation best done as a (target-specific) DAG combine? A...

...fine void @t1a(double %a, double %b, double %d) { >> entry: >> %div = fdiv fast double %a, %d >> %div1 = fdiv fast double %b, %d >> %call = tail call i32 @foo(double %div, double %div1) >> ret void >> } >> >> to: >> >> define void @t1b(double %a, double %b, double %d) { >> entry: >> %div = fdiv fast double 1.000000e+00, %d >> %mul = fmul fast double %div, %a >> %mul1 = fmul fast double %div, %b >> %call = tail call i32 @foo(double %mul, double %mul1) >> ret void >> } >> &g...

...ould like to > convert: > > define void @t1a(double %a, double %b, double %d) { > entry: > %div = fdiv fast double %a, %d > %div1 = fdiv fast double %b, %d > %call = tail call i32 @foo(double %div, double %div1) > ret void > } > > to: > > define void @t1b(double %a, double %b, double %d) { > entry: > %div = fdiv fast double 1.000000e+00, %d > %mul = fmul fast double %div, %a > %mul1 = fmul fast double %div, %b > %call = tail call i32 @foo(double %mul, double %mul1) > ret void > } > > Is such a transformation best...

...I would like to convert: > > define void @t1a(double %a, double %b, double %d) { > entry: > %div = fdiv fast double %a, %d > %div1 = fdiv fast double %b, %d > %call = tail call i32 @foo(double %div, double %div1) > ret void > } > > to: > > define void @t1b(double %a, double %b, double %d) { > entry: > %div = fdiv fast double 1.000000e+00, %d > %mul = fmul fast double %div, %a > %mul1 = fmul fast double %div, %b > %call = tail call i32 @foo(double %mul, double %mul1) > ret void > } > > Is such a transformation bes...

...I would like to convert: > > define void @t1a(double %a, double %b, double %d) { > entry: > %div = fdiv fast double %a, %d > %div1 = fdiv fast double %b, %d > %call = tail call i32 @foo(double %div, double %div1) > ret void > } > > to: > > define void @t1b(double %a, double %b, double %d) { > entry: > %div = fdiv fast double 1.000000e+00, %d > %mul = fmul fast double %div, %a > %mul1 = fmul fast double %div, %b > %call = tail call i32 @foo(double %mul, double %mul1) > ret void > } > > Is such a transformation bes...

Hi, I'm running a calculation in two ways. The first way is to employ vectors and evaluate a function in one go. The second way is to break down the function into pieces and combine the pieces to the final answer. Algebraically, they should give me the same result. But the final vector differs significantly. I must be missing something very obvious, but I just cannot see it xx <-

...e %d) { >>> entry: >>> %div = fdiv fast double %a, %d >>> %div1 = fdiv fast double %b, %d >>> %call = tail call i32 @foo(double %div, double %div1) >>> ret void >>> } >>> >>> to: >>> >>> define void @t1b(double %a, double %b, double %d) { >>> entry: >>> %div = fdiv fast double 1.000000e+00, %d >>> %mul = fmul fast double %div, %a >>> %mul1 = fmul fast double %div, %b >>> %call = tail call i32 @foo(double %mul, double %mul1) >>> ret voi...

...ne void @t1a(double %a, double %b, double %d) { >> entry: >> %div = fdiv fast double %a, %d >> %div1 = fdiv fast double %b, %d >> %call = tail call i32 @foo(double %div, double %div1) >> ret void >> } >> >> to: >> >> define void @t1b(double %a, double %b, double %d) { >> entry: >> %div = fdiv fast double 1.000000e+00, %d >> %mul = fmul fast double %div, %a >> %mul1 = fmul fast double %div, %b >> %call = tail call i32 @foo(double %mul, double %mul1) >> ret void >> } >> &...

...d like to > convert: > > define void @t1a(double %a, double %b, double %d) { > entry: > %div = fdiv fast double %a, %d > %div1 = fdiv fast double %b, %d > %call = tail call i32 @foo(double %div, double %div1) > ret void > } > > to: > > define void @t1b(double %a, double %b, double %d) { > entry: > %div = fdiv fast double 1.000000e+00, %d > %mul = fmul fast double %div, %a > %mul1 = fmul fast double %div, %b > %call = tail call i32 @foo(double %mul, double %mul1) > ret void > } > > Is such a transformation...

...hammering these queries at an apparently unsympathetic NT DNS server. Two affected (dns-forwarding-only) machines are: FreeBSD 4.8-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Feb 24 12:43:50 EST 2003 named 8.3.4-REL Mon Feb 24 11:46:20 EST 2003 4.6-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.6-RELEASE #0: Tue Jun 11 06:14:12 GMT 2002 named 8.3.2-T1B Tue Jun 11 03:58:03 GMT 2002 BTW, requiring BIND to use port 53 didn't help either. --- Sue Blake <aunty_sue@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 05:06:20 +1000 (EST) > From: Sue Blake <aunty_sue@yahoo.com.au> > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: r...

...would like to > convert: > > define void @t1a(double %a, double %b, double %d) { > entry: > %div = fdiv fast double %a, %d > %div1 = fdiv fast double %b, %d > %call = tail call i32 @foo(double %div, double %div1) > ret void > } > > to: > > define void @t1b(double %a, double %b, double %d) { > entry: > %div = fdiv fast double 1.000000e+00, %d > %mul = fmul fast double %div, %a > %mul1 = fmul fast double %div, %b > %call = tail call i32 @foo(double %mul, double %mul1) > ret void > } > > Is such a transformation best...

...al32); - dual_inner_prod(x, x, x-T0, N, &xx, &xy); + dual_inner_prod(x, x, x-T0, N, &xx, &xy, arch); yy_lookup[0] = xx; yy=xx; for (i=1;i<=maxperiod;i++) @@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ opus_val16 remove_doubling(opus_val16 *x, int maxperiod, int minperiod, { T1b = celt_udiv(2*second_check[k]*T0+k, 2*k); } - dual_inner_prod(x, &x[-T1], &x[-T1b], N, &xy, &xy2); + dual_inner_prod(x, &x[-T1], &x[-T1b], N, &xy, &xy2, arch); xy += xy2; yy = yy_lookup[T1] + yy_lookup[T1b]; #ifdef FIXED_POINT diff --g...

...al32); - dual_inner_prod(x, x, x-T0, N, &xx, &xy); + dual_inner_prod(x, x, x-T0, N, &xx, &xy, arch); yy_lookup[0] = xx; yy=xx; for (i=1;i<=maxperiod;i++) @@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ opus_val16 remove_doubling(opus_val16 *x, int maxperiod, int minperiod, { T1b = celt_udiv(2*second_check[k]*T0+k, 2*k); } - dual_inner_prod(x, &x[-T1], &x[-T1b], N, &xy, &xy2); + dual_inner_prod(x, &x[-T1], &x[-T1b], N, &xy, &xy2, arch); xy += xy2; yy = yy_lookup[T1] + yy_lookup[T1b]; #ifdef FIXED_POINT diff --g...

The attached patch cleans up Opus's x86 intrinsics configury. It: * Makes ?enable-intrinsics work with clang and other non-GCC compilers * Enables RTCD for the floating-point-mode SSE code in Celt. * Disables use of RTCD in cases where the compiler targets an instruction set by default. * Enables the SSE4.1 Silk optimizations that apply to the common parts of Silk when Opus is built in

Hi All, Since I continue to base my work on top of Jonathan's patch, and my previous Ne10 fft/ifft/mdct_forward/backward patches, I thought it would be better to just post all new patches as a patch series. Please let me know if anyone disagrees with this approach. You can see wip branch of all latest patches at https://git.linaro.org/people/viswanath.puttagunta/opus.git Branch:

Hi Timothy, As I mentioned earlier [1], I now fixed compile issues with fixed point and resubmitting the patch. I also have new patch that does intrinsics optimizations for celt_pitch_xcorr targetting aarch64. You can find my latest work-in-progress branch at [2] For reference, you can use the Ne10 pre-built libraries at [3] Note that I am working with Phil at ARM to get my patch at [4]

Hi All, As per Timothy's suggestion, disabling mdct_forward for fixed point. Only effects armv7,armv8: Extend fixed fft NE10 optimizations to mdct Rest of patches are same as in [1] For reference, latest wip code for opus is at [2] Still working with NE10 team at ARM to get corner cases of mdct_forward. Will update with another patch when issue in NE10 gets fixed. Regards, Vish [1]:

Hi All, Changes from RFC v2 [1] armv7,armv8: Extend fixed fft NE10 optimizations to mdct - Overflow issue fixed by Phil at ARM. Ne10 wip at [2]. Should be upstream soon. - So, re-enabled using fixed fft for mdct_forward which was disabled in RFCv2 armv7,armv8: Optimize fixed point fft using NE10 library - Thanks to Jonathan Lennox, fixed some build fixes on iOS and some copy-paste errors Rest