similar to: R optimization and curve()?

Hi, I apologize for the long message but the problem I encountered can't be stated in a few lines. I am having some problems with the function constrOptim. My goal is to maximize the likelihood of product of K multinomials, each with four catagories under linear constraints on the parameter values. I have found that the function does not work for many data configurations. #The likelihood

My problem with HFSC tc command is ... tc command''s HFSC have a lot parameter with 4 curve type SC curve -> umax dmax rate LS curve -> umax dmax rate RT curve -> umax dmax rate UL curve -> umax dmax rate so i''dont know which parameter are appropriate for my test case such real time class which curve are appropriate and good working result. my assumption about

declare i8 @llvm.atomic.load.max.i8.p0i8( i8* <ptr>, i8 <delta> ) declare i16 @llvm.atomic.load.max.i16.p0i16( i16* <ptr>, i16 <delta> ) declare i32 @llvm.atomic.load.max.i32.p0i32( i32* <ptr>, i32 <delta> ) declare i64 @llvm.atomic.load.max.i64.p0i64( i64* <ptr>, i64 <delta> ) declare i8 @llvm.atomic.load.min.i8.p0i8( i8* <ptr>, i8

I have a lot question about tc-command because now i''m doing research to compare performance between HTB and  HFSC so i''m doubt a lot thing and your reply are so very helpful to me ... My question is In HTB tc command question 1. I''m use opensource (Mastershaper) for help to config traffic control but when i''m try to config HTB, I''m doubt about

The IR update to allow vector types was here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57090 ...we didn't update the docs at that time because it was not clear what the backend would do with that, but that might've changed with some of the more recent patches. On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 1:42 AM Craig Topper via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I don't think I understand your

I'm interested in using @llvm.experimental.vector.reduce.smax/umax to implement runtime overflow checking for vectors. Here's an example checked addition, without vectors, and then I'll follow the example with what I would do for checked addition with vectors. Frontend code (zig): export fn entry() void { var a: i32 = 1; var b: i32 = 2; var x = a + b; } LLVM IR code:

Hi Sanjoy, Thanks for the reply! Your approach sounds good to me! I think 1) is legal as address wraparound in unsigned range doesn't make sense given a positive offset, but I am not sure. I think umax will not be added if we can prove the predicate as known. I am not sure whether umax will get simplified if we add nuw to the expressions. -Pankaj -----Original Message----- From: Sanjoy

Hi, I'm using the Umax Astra 610p scanner (parallel port scanner). Unfortunately, it is not supported by sane as Umax is not publishing specs. Searching on google I found out that some people got it working using vmware but nobody could get it working with wine. That is surprising me because people seem to get lots of complicated windows applications working but not a small scanner

On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 6:25 PM Simon Pilgrim <llvm-dev at redking.me.uk> wrote: > The add/sub (+mul) overflow intrinsics are being updated to support > vectors to match the related add/sub saturation intrinsics. We haven't > updated the docs yet as legalization, vectorization and various minor bits > of plumbing still need to be finished before it can be officially supported

I stumbled upon a problem while upgrading Ubuntu 13.04, Shorewall version from 4.4.26.1 to 4.5.16.1. Everything was working fine before, after upgrading the script wouldn''t start. First some config files. tcdevices: #INTERFACE IN-BANDWIDTH OUT-BANDWIDTH OPTIONS REDIRECTED eth1 - 6300kbit hfsc,classify ifb0 - 6300kbit hfsc

When I start my script: * - Creating classes on br1 for upload control ... * - tc class add dev br1 parent 2:0 classid 2:46 hfsc ls m1 576.0Kbit d 2000ms m2 192.0Kbit ul m2 384Kbit ... [ ok ] * - tc class add dev br1 parent 2:46 classid 2:47 hfsc sc umax 1500b dmax 30ms rate 80Kbit . [ ok ] * - tc class add dev br1 parent 2:46 classid 2:48 hfsc ls m2 152.0Kbit ul m2 152.0Kbit

Dear R list, I use the constrOptim to maximize a function with four constriants but the answer does not leave from the starting value and there is only one outer iteration. The function is defined as follows: tm<-function(p){ p1<-p[1]; p2<-p[2]; p3<-p[3]; p4<-1-p1-p2-p3; p1*p2*p3*p4} ##the constraints are p1>=0; p2>=0; p3>=0 and p4>=0 i.e. p1+p2+p3<=1

Dear R users, I?m a graduate students and in my master thesis I must obtain the values of the parameters x_i which maximize this Multinomial log?likelihood function log(n!)-sum_{i=1]^4 log(n_i!)+sum_ {i=1}^4 n_i log(x_i) under the following constraints: a) sum_i x_i=1, x_i>=0, b) x_1<=x_2+x_3+x_4 c)x_2<=x_3+x_4 I have been using the ?ConstrOptim? R-function with the instructions

Full_Name: Haobo Ren Version: 2.1.1 OS: Windows 2000 Submission from: (NULL) (192.11.226.116) When running constrOptim, there is error message Error: subscript out of bounds

Dear R users, I am trying to figure out the control parameter in "optim," especially, "fnscale" and "parscale." In the R docu., ------------------------------------------------------ fnscale An overall scaling to be applied to the value of fn and gr during optimization. If negative, turns the problem into a maximization problem. Optimization is performed on

On 7 June 2013 15:41, Arnold Schwaighofer <aschwaighofer at apple.com> wrote: > We don’t want to encode backend knowledge into the vectorizer (i.e. don’t > vectorize type X because the backend does not support it). > We already do, via the cost table. This case is no different. It might not be the best choice, but it is how the cost table is being built over the last months. The

> optim(c(1,1),LL,method="SANN",control=list(fnscale=-1),trans=trans,times=times) $par [1] 17.422635 -1.606859 How could i constraint that the parameters should be both positive in my maximizing problem? I check constrOptim but here i could only constraint the variables trans and times and not my parameters? many thanks, regards Christian

Hi, This message is a result of a discussion of backend optimization for sub(max) pattern(https://reviews.llvm.org/D25987), which can be either converted to unsigned min-max or unsigned saturation instruction(if the target supports it). Currently these versions of the code produce different IR(and we need to manage both types in backend): (1.16) void foo(unsigned short *p, unsigned short max,

Thanks for the suggestion but datalayout info did not solve the problem! -Pankaj -----Original Message----- From: Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 5:26 PM To: Chawla, Pankaj <pankaj.chawla at intel.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] missing simplification in ScalarEvolution? Try adding a datalayout with pointer size

Hello, I’ve read this Article avout VOIP and HFSC http://automatthias.wordpress.com/2006/06/30/hfsc-and-voip/ I’ve got few questions ? Considering this tc class add dev $DEV parent 1:1 classid 1:2 hfsc \ rt m1 ${UPLINK}kbit d 50ms m2 $[1*$UPLINK/10]kbit \ ls m1 ${UPLINK}kbit d 50ms m2 $[3*$UPLINK/10]kbit \ ul rate ${UPLINK}kbit rt = realtime curve ls = linksharing curve but m1 = ? m2 = ? d =