search for: tradeoff

...e="response") pred2 <- prediction(pred1, binary_classifier_vector) perf <- performance(pred, "sens", "spec") (Where "prediction" and "performance" are ROCR-functions.) How can I then retrieve the cutoff value for the sensitivity/specificity tradeoff with regard to the data in the model (e.g. model = glm(binary_classifier_vector ~ data, family="binomial", data=some_dataset)? Perhaps I missed something in the manual? Or do I need an entirely different approach for this? Or is there an alternative solution? Thanks, Christian --

...d to make a formal proposal and post it here. > > I missed the earlier discussion, so I'm sorry for chiming in late. > >> I propose to add the LLVM_FALLTHROUGH macro for specifying intended fall-through locations between switch cases. > > I don't really see that the tradeoff here is worthwhile. It is possible that we have some fallthrough bugs, but the cost of sprinkling this macro everywhere doesn't seem like the right tradeoff. > While I tend to agree with you, it's also true that for many (most?) of the locations where we have an intentional fall throu...

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 20, 2008, at 8:57 AM, David Greene wrote: > >> On Tuesday 20 May 2008 07:03, Nicolas Capens wrote: >> >>> 1) Does ScalarReplAggregates totally superscede >>> PromoteMemoryToRegister? I >> >> Nope, they are different. Mem2Reg is really important if you

...aggressive coalescing), while other register allocation algorithms are more straightforward? Cheers, Nicolas -----Original Message----- From: David Greene [mailto:dag at cray.com] Sent: Wednesday, 21 May, 2008 18:57 To: Nicolas Capens Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Optimization passes organization and tradeoffs On Wednesday 21 May 2008 04:01, you wrote: > Thanks for the clarifications David! > > My main target is x86. How do I control register allocation and scheduling? > The docs talk about IR level optimization passes only (as far as I found). There's a -regalloc option to pick from v...

...ok and tell me. Jean-Marc, In your 1.2 Beta 3 manual, on p. 7, you discuss quality: Quality (variable) Speex is a lossy codec, which means that it achives compression at the expense of fidelity of the input speech signal. Unlike some other speech codecs, it is possible to control the tradeoff made between quality and bit-rate. The Speex encoding process is controlled most of the time by a quality parameter that ranges from 0 to 10. In constant bit-rate (CBR) operation, the quality parameter is an integer, while for variable bit-rate (VBR), the parameter is a float. The sentence...

...bjects for the life of the session and don't do anything to reset state between bursts. As for VBR quality, VBR mode is designed to target a specified level of quality without guaranteeing how much bandwidth might be used at any particular moment. So, it's ideal when you want the best tradeoff between quality and bandwidth while not requiring a strict constraint on bandwidth. Try watching a graph of bandwidth utilization as you're talking and transmitting using VBR at a particular VBR quality setting. Try varying the VBR quality while listening for the difference in audio quali...

...ago, and now I've decided to make a formal proposal and post it here. I missed the earlier discussion, so I'm sorry for chiming in late. > I propose to add the LLVM_FALLTHROUGH macro for specifying intended fall-through locations between switch cases. I don't really see that the tradeoff here is worthwhile. It is possible that we have some fallthrough bugs, but the cost of sprinkling this macro everywhere doesn't seem like the right tradeoff. -Chris

I'm writing a voice communication application, and I've got a few issues that I'd like to get ironed out, but I don't know enough about the speex implementation. First of all, this application is mainly used for conferencing - many people are in a room and only 1-2 are ever talking at a time. So, always encoding and transmitting everyone's audio stream would be rather

hi everybody a newbie here, hoping some experienced users/expert can honestly answer this one question, and I think I realize all other advantages libvirtoffer but simply performance, does libvirt make a user pay penalty, even if only a small amount, for using it when compared to raw qemu-kvm command line? if it does where the overhead goes? quest or host, or maybe both? lastly if overall

On Wednesday 21 May 2008 15:48, Chris Lattner wrote: > > What's the difference between GVN and GCSE, if they both perform common > > subexpression elimination? > > GVN does more, and is a better algorithm. GCSE is basically deprecated > and should be removed at some point. Er...waitaminute. Maybe there's something I don't fully grok about GVN, but in general,

...? Typically you'll want to place it after various kinds of propagation are done (for example, SCCP). You can run it multipe times. > 4) Is DeadStoreElimination still necessary when we have AggressiveDCE? Probably, but I'll let others give the definitive answer. > 5) What are the tradeoffs between the different dead code elimination > variants (why not always use the aggressive one)? Others can speak to this. > 6) Is there a better place for CFGSimplification? Should I perform it at > multiple points? I think once is probably enough. Earlier would probably be better as...

...ction. Our debugger team > really cares about startup cost. Turnaround time in general is huge for our > licensees, to the point where we support edit-and-continue (minimal > rebuild, live-patch the running process). > Ah, good to know! I'd be curious to know about the performance tradeoff when they're disabled if you ever happen to have data around that. I guess a related question: Does SCE use the non-.text entries (or otherwise have an opinion on having them) in debug_aranges? > --paulr > > > > *From:* David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > *Sent:* M...

...! -Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of Chris Lattner > Sent: Tuesday, 20 May, 2008 20:28 > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Optimization passes organization and tradeoffs > > > On May 20, 2008, at 8:57 AM, David Greene wrote: > >> On Tuesday 20 May 2008 07:03, Nicolas Capens wrote: >> >>> 1) Does ScalarReplAggregates totally superscede >>> PromoteMemoryToRegister? I >> >> Nope, they are different. Mem2Reg is re...

...ays, but what is the expected added complexity? 2) Does SCCP also eliminate multiplying/dividing by 1 and adding/subtracting 0? 3) Is it arbitrary where to place InstructionCombining? Is there a better order? 4) Is DeadStoreElimination still necessary when we have AggressiveDCE? 5) What are the tradeoffs between the different dead code elimination variants (why not always use the aggressive one)? 6) Is there a better place for CFGSimplification? Should I perform it at multiple points? Also, my code will frequently have vectors, that are either initialized to all 0.0 or 1.0. This offers a lot...

...>> > I missed the earlier discussion, so I'm sorry for chiming in late. >> > >> >> I propose to add the LLVM_FALLTHROUGH macro for specifying intended >> fall-through locations between switch cases. >> > >> > I don't really see that the tradeoff here is worthwhile. It is >> possible that we have some fallthrough bugs, but the cost of sprinkling >> this macro everywhere doesn't seem like the right tradeoff. >> > >> >> While I tend to agree with you, it's also true that for many (most?) of >> t...

...otice a glitch. Kind regards, Nicolas -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Lattner Sent: Tuesday, 20 May, 2008 20:28 To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Optimization passes organization and tradeoffs On May 20, 2008, at 8:57 AM, David Greene wrote: > On Tuesday 20 May 2008 07:03, Nicolas Capens wrote: > >> 1) Does ScalarReplAggregates totally superscede >> PromoteMemoryToRegister? I > > Nope, they are different. Mem2Reg is really important if you want > regis...

...post it here. > > > > I missed the earlier discussion, so I'm sorry for chiming in late. > > > >> I propose to add the LLVM_FALLTHROUGH macro for specifying intended > fall-through locations between switch cases. > > > > I don't really see that the tradeoff here is worthwhile. It is possible > that we have some fallthrough bugs, but the cost of sprinkling this macro > everywhere doesn't seem like the right tradeoff. > > > > While I tend to agree with you, it's also true that for many (most?) of > the locations where we ha...

...sed the earlier discussion, so I'm sorry for chiming in late. >>> > >>> >> I propose to add the LLVM_FALLTHROUGH macro for specifying intended >>> fall-through locations between switch cases. >>> > >>> > I don't really see that the tradeoff here is worthwhile. It is >>> possible that we have some fallthrough bugs, but the cost of sprinkling >>> this macro everywhere doesn't seem like the right tradeoff. >>> > >>> >>> While I tend to agree with you, it's also true that for many (...

...r code snippet either.. David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 于2020年8月14日周五 上午7:55写道： > On 14/08/2020 03:39, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: > > Once you get past the nothrow default problems, then you probably have > > to deal with the performance tradeoffs between the current strategy > > for exception implementations (table based, etc) compared to the > > tradeoffs for explicit error handling. You'd probably find that using > > exceptions for/every/ error return would not be the right perf > > tradeoff for many use case...

...d writing efficiency. They are, however, still just arrays of one of the two primitive single-byte types. > If all pointer types are implied, not a problem to create them. However, > in larger files it may cost a little due to slightly larger type > numbers. I'm not sure about the tradeoff here, but I expect that implied > pointers would still save more just because of pointers to function types. Pointers are used heavily in almost all languages. I can almost guarantee that the "tradeoff" would be larger bytecode files. The use of pointers to function types is not all...