search for: tradeoffs

Hi, My questions concerns the ROCR package and I hope somebody here on the list can help - or point me to some better place. When evaluating a model's performane, like this: pred1 <- predict(model, ..., type="response") pred2 <- prediction(pred1, binary_classifier_vector) perf <- performance(pred, "sens", "spec") (Where "prediction" and

On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > <dropping llvm-commits> > > On Jul 2, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Alexander Kornienko wrote: > >> Hi llvmdev, llvm-commits, >> >> There was a discussion on this topic a while ago, and now I've decided to make a formal proposal and post it here. > > I missed the earlier

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 va...

Jean-Marc Valin <jean-marc.valin at usherbrooke.ca> writes: > On 2010-04-03 22:52, Randy Yates wrote: >> Jean-Marc Valin<jean-marc.valin at usherbrooke.ca> writes: >> >>> Quality and bit-rate are different ways of specifying exactly the same >>> thing. Complexity is orthogonal. >> >> That clears it up - thanks. Is this in the manual? >

I don't know why you're getting sound carrying over to the next time you encode - that doesn't sound normal to me. Have you tried saving and examining the raw audio you're feeding to the encoder? Have you tried encoding and decoding that using speexenc/speexdec? I use Speex in VBR mode for a VoIP app. I'm always recording and running the audio through the preprocessor

<dropping llvm-commits> On Jul 2, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Alexander Kornienko wrote: > Hi llvmdev, llvm-commits, > > There was a discussion on this topic a while 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

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 i...

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 10:50 AM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > SCE tuning does turn on the .debug_aranges section. 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

...! -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 rea...

...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...

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> >> > <dropping llvm-commits> >> > >> > On Jul 2, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Alexander

...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 > regist...

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > > <dropping llvm-commits> > > > > On Jul 2, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Alexander Kornienko wrote: > > > >> Hi llvmdev, llvm-commits, > >> > >> There was a discussion on

Ping. On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:

...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 cases...

On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 19:46, Robert Mykland wrote: > At 06:43 PM 8/20/2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > >I don't understand what you're getting at here. You can change char to > >default to unsigned right now with llvm-gcc -funsigned-char. I don't > >understand how that would change anything to be more useful though. > > Well, in the old days, char strings were