similar to: processing requirements

Hi all, Since proc.time return three different kind of times (user, system and elapsed) , I am wondering which one is right for calculating flops. In New S Language (Becker et. al. ) , it seems to be the user because " the user time measures the processor time used in S and the system time measures the operating system in response to S's request". But in R Help , system time

Hi, LLVM’s SLP-vectorizer is a new pass that combines similar independent instructions in a straight-line code. It is currently not enabled by default, and people who want to experiment with it can use the clang command line flag “-fslp-vectorize”. I ran LLVM’s test suite with and without the SLP vectorizer on a Sandybridge mac (using SSE4, w/o AVX). Based on my performance measurements

Hi, Below you can see the updated benchmark results for the new SLP-vectorizer. As you can see, there is a small number of compile time regressions, a single major runtime *regression, and many performance gains. There is a tiny increase in code size: 30k for the whole test-suite. Based on the numbers below I would like to enable the SLP-vectorizer by default for -O3. Please let me know if you

On Jul 13, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, > > LLVM’s SLP-vectorizer is a new pass that combines similar independent instructions in a straight-line code. It is currently not enabled by default, and people who want to experiment with it can use the clang command line flag “-fslp-vectorize”. I ran LLVM’s test suite with and without the SLP

On Jul 14, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 13, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> LLVM’s SLP-vectorizer is a new pass that combines similar independent instructions in a straight-line code. It is currently not enabled by default, and people who want to experiment with it

Hi, Sorry for the delay in response. I measured the code size change and noticed small changes in both directions for individual programs. I found a 30k binary size growth for the entire testsuite + SPEC. I attached an updated performance report that includes both compile time and performance measurements. Thanks, Nadav On Jul 14, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com>

On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote: > On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: >> >> PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat if >> I >> look back). One day I realized how happy I am that I chose RedHat way >> back, - that was when all Debian (and its clones like Ubuntu,...) admins

Hello; I was able to build and install llvm(3.0) under Ubuntu 11.10 (using the ./configure script found under llvm source, and then make and make install). While configuring, I gave --prefix as a directory where I would like llvm to be installed. I did not give --with-llvmgccdir and the --enable-optimized argument to configure. Because 3.0 doesn't come with llvmgcc source/binaries and I

Hello all, I have evaluated the compile-time and execution-time performance of Polly canonicalization passes. Details can be referred to http://188.40.87.11:8000/db_default/v4/nts/recent_activity. There are four runs: pollyBasic (run 45): clang -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so pollyNoGenSCEV (run 44): clang -O3 -Xclang -load -Xclang LLVMPolly.so -mllvm -polly -mllvm -polly-codegen-scev

On 11/08/2011 03:36 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 12:12 +0100, Tobias Grosser wrote: >> On 11/08/2011 11:45 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: >>> I've attached the latest version of my autovectorization patch. >>> >>> Working through the test suite has proved to be a productive >>> experience ;) -- And almost all of the bugs that it revealed

On 11/08/2011 11:45 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > I've attached the latest version of my autovectorization patch. > > Working through the test suite has proved to be a productive > experience ;) -- And almost all of the bugs that it revealed have now > been fixed. There are still two programs that don't compile with > vectorization turned on, and I'm working on those now,

I've attached the latest version of my autovectorization patch. Working through the test suite has proved to be a productive experience ;) -- And almost all of the bugs that it revealed have now been fixed. There are still two programs that don't compile with vectorization turned on, and I'm working on those now, but in case anyone feels like playing with vectorization, this patch

At 2013-09-09 13:07:07,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >On 09/09/2013 05:18 AM, Star Tan wrote: >> >> At 2013-09-09 05:52:35,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> >>> On 09/08/2013 08:03 PM, Star Tan wrote: >>> Also, I wonder if your runs include the dependence analysis. If this is >>> the

On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 12:12 +0100, Tobias Grosser wrote: > On 11/08/2011 11:45 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > > I've attached the latest version of my autovectorization patch. > > > > Working through the test suite has proved to be a productive > > experience ;) -- And almost all of the bugs that it revealed have now > > been fixed. There are still two programs that

On 09/09/2013 05:18 AM, Star Tan wrote: > > At 2013-09-09 05:52:35,"Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > >> On 09/08/2013 08:03 PM, Star Tan wrote: >> Also, I wonder if your runs include the dependence analysis. If this is >> the case, the numbers are very good. Otherwise, 30% overhead seems still >> to be a little bit much. > I think

On Sun, January 11, 2015 8:29 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote: > On 01/11/2015 09:24 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote: >>> On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: >>>> PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite happy about CentOS (or RedHat >>>> if >>>> I

Commit-ID: a0461894ef08d6f8e034b4fa66a04d60d98ad465 Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/?p=libs/klibc/klibc.git;a=commit;h=a0461894ef08d6f8e034b4fa66a04d60d98ad465 Author: Ben Hutchings <ben at decadent.org.uk> AuthorDate: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 15:47:42 +0000 Committer: Ben Hutchings <ben at decadent.org.uk> CommitDate: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 00:15:30 +0100 [klibc] REAMDE.klibc: Update

On 01/11/2015 09:38 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > On Sun, January 11, 2015 8:29 pm, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote: >> On 01/11/2015 09:24 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >>> On Sun, January 11, 2015 7:29 pm, Keith Keller wrote: >>>> On 2015-01-12, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: >>>>> PS I guess I just mention it. I'm quite

Greetings, I would like to fit a multiple linear regression model in which the residuals are expected to follow a multivariate normal distribution, using weighted least squares. I know that the data in question have biases that would result in correlated residuals, and I have a means for quantifying those biases as a covariance matrix. I cannot, unfortunately, correct the data for these biases.

G'Day Tanya, Is it too late to bring in the following patches to fix some major brokenness in the AuroraUX tool chain for 2.6? http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp?r1=84468&r2=84469&view=diff&pathrev=84469 http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp?r1=84265&r2=84266&view=diff&pathrev=84266