similar to: scoping problems (PR#614)

Hola! I have the following simple function: > testcar function(pow){ ob <- glm(Pound~CG+Age+Vage,data=car,weights=No, subset=No>0,family=quasi(link=power(pow),var=mu^2)) deviance(ob) } But trying to run it gives: > testcar(1/2) Error in power(pow) : Object "pow" not found I have tried to use debug on testcar, but what I can find

Dear list, I'm trying to mimic the analysis of Wedderburn (1974) as cited by McCullagh and Nelder (1989) on p.328-332. This is the leaf-blotch on barley example, and the data is available in the `faraway' package. Wedderburn suggested using the variance function mu^2(1-mu)^2. This variance function isn't readily available in R's `quasi' family object, but it seems to me

This is not so much a bug as an infelicity in the code that can easily be fixed. The initialize expression in the quasi family function is, (uniformly for all links and all variance functions): initialize <- expression({ n <- rep.int(1, nobs) mustart <- y + 0.1 * (y == 0) }) This is inappropriate (and often fails) for variance function "mu(1-mu)".

Dear R users I have been looking for functions that can deal with overdispersed poisson models. Some (one) of the observations are negative. According to actuarial literature (England & Verall, Stochastic Claims Reserving in General Insurance , Institute of Actiuaries 2002) this can be handled through the use of quasi likelihoods instead of normal likelihoods. The presence of negatives is not

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Friedman, Eli via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 1/12/2017 9:33 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote: >>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Antoine Pitrou via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:17 -0600 >>> Wei Ding via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

2007/11/22, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>: > > Hi, > > > Current llvm-gcc cannot emit llvm intrinsic function like llvm.pow.* and > > llvm.sin.* > > For example: > > > > double foo(double x, double y) { > > return pow(x,y); > > } > > > > will compiled into ll: > > > > define double @foo(double %x, double %y) {

Hi, > Current llvm-gcc cannot emit llvm intrinsic function like llvm.pow.* and > llvm.sin.* > For example: > > double foo(double x, double y) { > return pow(x,y); > } > > will compiled into ll: > > define double @foo(double %x, double %y) { > %tmp3 = tail call double @pow( double %x, double %y ) > ret double %tmp3 > } > > This is not

The transformation in LibCallSimplifier::replacePowWithSqrt with respect to -Inf uses a select instruction, which based on the observed behaviour, incorporates the side effects of the unchosen branch. This means that (for pow) a call to sqrt(-Inf) is materialized. Such a call is specified as having a domain error (C17 subclause 7.12.7.5) since the operand is less than zero. Contrast this with

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Antoine Pitrou via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:17 -0600 > Wei Ding via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I want an efficient way to implement function pow in LLVM instead of >> invoking pow() math built-in. For algorithm part, I am clear for the

Sorry - I misread your example and the problem. I see now where LibCallSimplifier creates the select...but we are immediately erasing that select with the code from the godbolt example. Does the real motivating case have no uses of the pow() result value? On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 1:03 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > Yes, I mean just bail out on the transform in >

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 12:45 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > Yes, that looks like a bug. The transform is ok in general for negative > numbers, but -Inf is a special-case for pow(), right? > If so, we probably need an extra check of the input with > "isKnownNeverInfinity()". > There is an extra check there already, but it uses

OK, I have made a little search about this "problem" that apparently occurs only on Windows platform... (but I am sure most of you are already aware of it): the slow down is due to the adoption of a different algorithm for pow in mingw 3.x. This is motivated by some other changes in mingw. Here is a quote of Danny Smith that did this change: >When mingw changed default FPU settings

Hi, Current llvm-gcc cannot emit llvm intrinsic function like llvm.pow.* and llvm.sin.* For example: double foo(double x, double y) { return pow(x,y); } will compiled into ll: define double @foo(double %x, double %y) { %tmp3 = tail call double @pow( double %x, double %y ) ret double %tmp3 } This is not consistent with llvm language reference. -------------- next part -------------- An

Hi everyone, I am trying to install colorspace (needed as part of my favourite ggplot2) on R v 2.7.0 running under ubuntu 7.04. The package is provided as source files and the compilation fails as below. I suspect this might be a problem with gcc v3/v4 incompatibility (or anything else), but I don't really know how to resolve it. Any advice will be appreciated - or perhaps somebody has got

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On Jan 12, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Steve (Numerics) Canon <scanon at apple.com <mailto:scanon at apple.com>> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Friedman, Eli via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>

Hi, It looks like SimplifyLibCalls has a tendency to emit calls to libm functions without checking with TLI whether these calls are available. For example, PowOpt has this code: struct PowOpt : public UnsafeFPLibCallOptimization { PowOpt(bool UnsafeFPShrink) : UnsafeFPLibCallOptimization(UnsafeFPShrink) {} virtual Value *callOptimizer(Function *Callee, CallInst *CI, IRBuilder<> &B)

How might you fit a generalized linear model (glm) with variance = mu+theta*mu^2 (where mu = mean of the exponential family random variable and theta is a parameter to be estimated)? This appears in Table 2.7 of Fahrmeir and Tutz (2001) Multivariate Statisticial Modeling Based on Generalized Linear Models, 2nd ed. (Springer, p. 60), where they compare "log-linear model fits to

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Kuperstein, Michael M < michael.m.kuperstein at intel.com> wrote: > Hi,**** > > ** ** > > It looks like SimplifyLibCalls has a tendency to emit calls to libm > functions without checking with TLI whether these calls are available.**** > > For example, PowOpt has this code:**** > > ** ** > > struct PowOpt : public

Hi, I am using llvm to generate jit code for numerical computation on window 7 64 platform. There is a function call, pow, in the jit code. The problem is that at run time, the pow function call sometimes links to msvcrt.dll, and sometimes to msvcr100.dll. These two calls from two dlls return different results, causing sporadic results. I tried to make the pow function either intrinsic or

Hi all, I have run a (glm) analysis where the dependent variable is the gender (family=binomial) and the predictors are percentages. I get a warning saying "fitted probabilities numerically 0 or 1 occurred" that is indicating that quasi-separation or separation is occurring. This makes sense given that one of these predictors have a very influential effect that is depending on a