similar to: Different results between lda(mass) and spss discriminant analysis

Hello, I was hoping for some advice to resolve a problem I am having trouble with. The data consists of a series of pre and post variables, in a dataframe called 'offend'. I am interested in graphically depicting the pre & post values for a factor variable called 'decision' which has 4 values : nusm, fit, unsound & unfit. An example of a pre and post variable is:

Thanks for your answers. Another example of unsound transformation on Boolean algebra. According to the LLVM documentation (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#undefined-values) it is unsafe to consider ' a & undef = undef ' and ' a | undef = undef ' but 'undef xor undef = undef' is safe. Now, given an expression ((a & (~b)) | ((~a) & b)) where a and b are

> I am planning in doing in IR, but with target specific-passes (such as X86ExpandAtomicPass) > that just share some of the code This would more normally be done via target hooks in LLVM, though the principle is sound. > But it must be target-dependent as for example on Power a > seq_cst store has a fence before it, while on ARM it has a fence > both before and after it (per

Thanks for the background on the concurrent memory model. So, is it sufficient that the loop entry is guarded by condition (cbz at top) for preventing the race? The loop entry will be guarded by condition if loop has been rotated by loop rotate pass. Since LICM runs after loop rotate, we can use ScalarEvolution::isLoopEntryGuardedByCond to check if we can speculatively execute load without

I am hoping for some assistance with formatting a large text file which consists of a series of individual records. Each record includes specific labels/field names (a sample of 1 record (one of the longest ones) is below - at end of post. What I want to do is reformat the data, so that each individual record becomes a row (some cells will have a lot of text). For example, the column

I think gcc is right. It inserted a branch for n == 0 (the cbz at the top), so that's not a problem. In all other regards, this is safe: if you examine the sequence of loads and stores, it eliminated all but the first load and all but the last store. How's that unsafe? If I had to guess, the bug here is that LLVM doesn't want to hoist the load over the condition (which it is right

Thanks for the detailed explanation. So is changing the analysis technique from path sensitive (symbolic execution) analysis to some other technique bring in the soundness property ? Thanks, Siddharth On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 1:27 AM, Artem Dergachev <noqnoqneo at gmail.com> wrote: > Nope, at least not with the "path-sensitive" (symbolic execution) engine. > Which is the

On Jun 13, 2009, at 3:54 AM, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: > Currently I just represent %c as i8*. I assume that this can have > consequences in terms of aliasing. I tried opaque*, but llvm-as didn't > like that. Is there any way to better represent the type %c to LLVM? I assume this is for tagged sums. Logically, what you want is a distinct LLVM type for every ML union type and each of

Hi, > Both A and B are undef: > LHS = (undef & undef) | (undef & undef) = undef // Since ~undef = undef > RHS = undef > Thus transform is correct. LLVM documentation (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#undefined-values) suggests that it is unsafe to consider (a & undef = undef) and (a | undef = undef). "As such, it is unsafe to optimize or assume

On Feb 23, 2009, at 10:30 PM, Scott Michel wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > wrote: > > On Feb 23, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Scott Michel wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Nate Begeman <natebegeman at me.com> >> wrote: >> >> It's basically as Chris said; there will be a

I'm far from an expert on stats but what I think you are saying is if you try and compare Baseline with Version 3 you don't think your p-value is as good as version 1 and 2. I'm not 100% sure you are meant to do that with p-values but I'll let someone else comment on that!. total incorrect correct % correct baseline 898 708 190 21.2%

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 23, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Scott Michel wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Nate Begeman <natebegeman at me.com> wrote: > >> >> It's basically as Chris said; there will be a ShuffleVectorSDNode, and >> appropriate helper functions, node profile, and

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 9:44 PM, John McCall<rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 2009, at 3:54 AM, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: > Currently I just represent %c as i8*. I assume that this can have > consequences in terms of aliasing. I tried opaque*, but llvm-as didn't > like that. Is there any way to better represent the type %c to LLVM? > > I assume this is for

Hi LLVMDev, this is Jeehoon Kang, a Ph.D. student of Software Foundations Laboratory ( http://sf.snu.ac.kr), Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering, Seoul National University. Our group studied the mem2reg pass, and we got a question on its algorithm. As far as I understand, the mem2reg pass essentially uses the SSA construction algorithm to promote allocas into registers, but there are

Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: > On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 9:44 PM, John McCall<rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: >> On Jun 13, 2009, at 3:54 AM, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: >> Currently I just represent %c as i8*. I assume that this can have >> consequences in terms of aliasing. I tried opaque*, but llvm-as didn't >> like that. Is there any way to better represent the type

Am Mo., 22. Juli 2019 um 10:50 Uhr schrieb Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov>: > Why introduce a new intrinsic (family)? It seems that would require us > to support GEPs and GEP + "multi-dim" semantics in various places. What is > the benefit over a GEP extension? Adding an intrinsic is easier than adding or extending an existing instruction, as suggested by

On 16 Nov 2016, at 19:03, Davide Italiano <davide at FreeBSD.org> wrote: > >>> >>> For our target, this is only sound if you can show that the pointer was >>> used to read all of the bytes that you are loading (we have byte-granularity >>> memory safety). Old GVN has no hooks for targets to specify whether this is >>> safe and so is

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > I think you're jumping ahead a bit here. I'm not sure the semantics are > anywhere near as weird as you're framing them to be. :) I now think this weirdness actually does not have to do anything with guard_on or bail_to_interpeter, but it has to do with deopt bundles itself. Our

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 2:03 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > This is really great to see, as I’ve spent far too much of my life over > the past two years fighting with undocumented assumptions made by GVN. A > couple of quick questions about the new GVN, based on problems I’ve had > with the old one: > > Does it assume that it’s