similar to: Behavior or as.environment in function arguments/call (and force() behaviors...)

On Aug 22, 2008, at 4:40 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > The LLVM passes are responsible to take appropriate actions based on > Function > Notes associated with function definition. For example, > > define void @fn1() notes("opt-size=1") { ... } > > The function fn1() is being optimized for size without losing > significant > performance. The inliner will

All, I'm working on an improvement to the inline cost model, but I'm unsure how to proceed. Let me begin by first describing the problem I'm trying to solve. Consider the following pseudo C code: *typedef struct element { unsigned idx; } element_t; * *static inline unsigned char fn2 (element_t *dst_ptr, const element_t *a_ptr, const element_t *b_ptr,

Here is a proposal that I mentioned sometime ago. Any thoughts,comments or suggestions on this proposal would be appreciated. - Devang // = = =---------------------------------------------------------------------- ===// // Function Notes (or Traits) // = = =---------------------------------------------------------------------- ===// This document describes the

On 8/4/2017 2:06 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > A few notes: > I'm a bit surprised IPO copy/constant propagation doesn't get this > case, but i didn't look if the lattice supports variables. > In particular, in your example, given no other call sites, it should > eliminate the dead code. > (In a real program, it may require cloning). In the actual program

Hi, Coincidentally I've been working to optimize this same case last week. I was struggling a bit to determine where to put this functionality and eventually went for the pragmatic approach of creating an experimental pass. Probably not the eventual solution, but it may provide some useful input to the discussion here. Basically, I experimented with a 'pre-inlining-transform' pass

On Aug 25, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2008, at 4:40 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > >> The LLVM passes are responsible to take appropriate actions based >> on Function >> Notes associated with function definition. For example, >> >> define void @fn1() notes("opt-size=1") { ... } >> >> The function fn1() is being

Dear List, I've been looking tirelessly for a solution to this dilemma but without success. Perhaps someone has an idea that will guide me in the right direction. Suppose I have the following data.frame: DF = data.frame(X = c(114.5508, 114.6468, 114.6596, 114.6957, 114.6828, 114.8903, 114.9519, 114.8842, 114.8579, 114.8489), Y = c(47.14094, 46.98874, 46.91235, 46.88265, 46.80584, 46.67022,

Hi R-users, Does R has a topic on newton's method? Thank you for the info.

Hi Devang, I have a few questions below. On Aug 22, 2008, at 4:40 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > Here is a proposal that I mentioned sometime ago. Any > thoughts,comments or > suggestions on this proposal would be appreciated. > - > Devang > > // > = > = > = > ----------------------------------------------------------------------= > ==// > //

On 8/7/2017 1:02 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > Can someone fill me in on the issue with the dominator tree, > precisely, during inlining? > We now have the capability of quickly keeping it up to date without > too much trouble (it may require pushing it through a bunch of places, > but the actual changes to do should be easy). If I'm not mistaken (which I very well could be

Full_Name: James Signorovitch Version: 2.2.1 OS: WinXP Submission from: (NULL) (134.174.182.203) In the code below, fn1() and fn2() fail with the messages given in the comments. Strangely, fn2() fails for all data sets I've tried except for those with 100 rows. The same errors occur if glm() is used in place of lm(), or if R 2.1.1 is used on a unix system. Thanks for looking into this.

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:30 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:38 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: Trying to wrap my brain around this, so a few questions below. =) Sure thing - sorry, did assume a bit too much arcane context here.

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 2:08 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:30 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:38 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: >

Hi all, I'm just curious how memory management works in R... I need to run an optimization that keeps calling the same function with a large set of parameters... so then I start to wonder if it's better if I attach the variables first vs passing them in (coz that involves a lot of copying.. ) Thus, I do this fn3 <- function(x, y, z, a, b, c){ sum(x, y, z, a, b, c) } fn4 <-

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:17 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 2:08 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:30 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:38 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:20 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:17 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 2:08 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:30 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>

Dear all, I would really appreciate if somebody can help me to understand what does the phrase "Vectorize your function" mean? And what is the job of Vectorize() function in doing that? I have read many threads where experts suggest to Vectorize the function, which will speed up entire calculation (and more elegant ofcourse.) I used to think that vectorizing function means, to create a

For those who suggest other ways to do this, I ALREADY HAVE ANOTHER DESIGN SOLUTION, DESCRIBED AT THE END. That being said, I want to know if it's possible to reference a slot in an S4 class from another slot, i.e. I'd like to have the "self.*" semantics of Python so that I can reuse a slot. That is, for various reasons it would be nice to be able to do something like:

Hi, > Suppose I have the following source: > > file1: > #include "file2" > #include "file3" > int fn1(void) ... > > file2: > int a; > > file3: > int fn2(void) ... > > then fn1, along with all the base types etc appear to be in compile unit > "file1", the variable a appears to be in compile unit

I have a question about the llvm debugging records, especially wrt compile units. In the non-LLVM sense, a compile unit is essentially everything contained within a single .o file, and it is derived from one or more source and header files. Included in a compile unit are functions and global data. Dwarf records refer to compile units in the same way: a compile unit record has children which