Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "Polybench llvm's IR -fopenmp"
2015 May 02
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] libiomp, not libgomp as default library linked with -fopenmp
On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 11:18:35PM +0300, Andrey Bokhanko wrote:
> 3) Some people believe that libiomp is not a proper name anymore and
> should be changed. I'm not a library expert, so really don't know.
> However, this means that we should flip default library setting ASAP.
> Why? Because now "libiomp5" is a user-visible name (one has to use
>
2015 Apr 30
2
[LLVMdev] libiomp, not libgomp as default library linked with -fopenmp
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Andrey Bokhanko" <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>
>> To: "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Douglas Gregor"
>> <dgregor at apple.com>,
2015 May 02
3
[LLVMdev] libiomp, not libgomp as default library linked with -fopenmp
Jack,
Could you, please, submit a bug report? -- including steps to
reproduce (where you got imageMagick sources, how exactly you compiled
them, etc)
Andrey
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Jack Howarth
<howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Chandler,
2003 Jan 22
1
: Trellis plot
Hi all,
I would be grateful if anyone could help me with the following. I am using
nlme library and I am trying to do a trellis plot with an outer factor, but
I have an error message which I can't understand.
Here is the code :
> mydata <- groupedData(y ~ x | warren/rabbit, outer= ~ treatment,
data=mydata)
> plot(mydata)
# I obtain a plot with all rabbits displayed individually and
2015 May 01
2
[LLVMdev] libiomp, not libgomp as default library linked with -fopenmp
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:46 AM Jack Howarth <
> howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:52 AM Andrey Bokhanko <
>>>
2003 Nov 21
1
: BIC for gls models
Hi all,
I would like to know how the BIC criterion is calculated for models estimated using gls( ) function. I read in Pinheiro & Bates (2000) p84 that
BIC = -2logL + npar*log(N) (for the ML method), or
BIC = -2logLR + npar*log(N-p) (for the REML method)
but when I use any of these formulae I don't obtain the result given by R.
Thanks in advance for any help.
Eve CORDA
Office national
2015 May 01
3
[LLVMdev] libiomp, not libgomp as default library linked with -fopenmp
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 6:52 AM Andrey Bokhanko <andreybokhanko at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I'd like to resurrect the discussion on replacing libgomp with libiomp as
>> the default OpenMP runtime library linked with -fopenmp.
>>
>
> Just for
2015 Apr 30
2
[LLVMdev] libiomp, not libgomp as default library linked with -fopenmp
On 30 April 2015 at 10:06, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to resurrect the discussion on replacing libgomp with
>> libiomp as the default OpenMP runtime library linked with -fopenmp.
>>
>>
>> For reference, the previous discussion is accessible there:
>>
2015 May 01
4
[LLVMdev] libiomp, not libgomp as default library linked with -fopenmp
Chandler,
Thanks for the reply -- I always included you in libiomp supporters camp;
it is good to see I wasn't mistaken! ;-)
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
wrote:
> Is there no way to support libgomp here as well? I don't say this to hold
> up changing the defaults in any way, just curious. =]
>
No, sorry. libgomp doesn't
2013 Jun 09
0
[LLVMdev] [Patch] Apply for adding PolyBench to LLVM testsuite
On 06/08/2013 11:26 PM, Star Tan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> PolyBench (http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~pouchet/software/polybench/) is a well-known benchmark for polyhedral compiler. Since LLVM-Polly http://polly.llvm.org/) has provided a very good polyhedral optimizer for LLVM, could we add this benchmark to LLVM test-suite?
>
>
> I have attached the patch file to add
2016 Oct 20
2
[test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>> polybench/linear-algebra/kernels/symm, FP_ABSTOLERANCE=1e1
>> polybench/linear-algebra/solvers/gramschmidt, FP_ABSTOLERANCE=1e0
>> What should be a good relative tolerance to set for these two tests?
>
> What's the minimum relative tolerance that you need for them to pass?
Setting
2013 Jun 09
1
[LLVMdev] [Patch] Apply for adding PolyBench to LLVM testsuite
Hi all,
PolyBench (http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~pouchet/software/polybench/) is a well-known benchmark for polyhedral compiler. Since LLVM-Polly http://polly.llvm.org/) has provided a very good polyhedral optimizer for LLVM, could we add this benchmark to LLVM test-suite?
I have attached the patch file to add PolyBench to LLVM test-suite.
Best wishes,
Star Tan
-------------- next part
2016 Oct 12
4
[test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> I don't think that Clang/LLVM uses it by default on x86_64. If you're using -Ofast, however, that would explain it. I recommend looking at -O3 vs -O0 and make sure those are the same. -Ofast enables -ffast-math, which can legitimately cause differences.
>
The following tests pass at "-O3" and
2012 May 30
2
[LLVMdev] Adding Polybench to the test suite
Hi all,
We are trying to add Polybench[1] to the LLVM test suite. So far we
have all but five benchmarks working fine. The problems we're having
in those five benchmarks are due to gcc's versus clang's different
ways to output 'Nan's. We are working to solve this.
Although the patch is not ready yet to be included in the LLVM test
suite, we would like to have some feedback
2003 Jul 24
1
: performing marginal tests to glm objects
Dear all,
I wonder if it is possible to obtain marginal tests for effects in generalized linear models. Indeed, the anova function produces sequential tests and it doesn't have any "type" argument to specify that we would like marginal tests instead, as in the similar anova function for lme objects.
Thanks a lot for your help!
Eve CORDA
Office national de la chasse et de la faune
2016 Oct 20
2
[test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 20 October 2016 at 16:05, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Setting FP_ABSTOLERANCE=1e-5, the two tests are passing
>> when compiled with -Ofast for the following relative tolerance:
>>
>> polybench/linear-algebra/kernels/symm, FP_TOLERANCE=1e-10
>>
2016 Oct 14
3
[test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org>
>> To: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com>
>> Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>,
2016 Oct 11
3
[test-suite] making polybench/symm succeed with "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on"
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com>
>> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
>> Cc: "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Matthias
2015 May 06
3
[LLVMdev] libiomp, not libgomp as default library linked with -fopenmp
Chandler:
1) I completely agree with the comments some others have made about
us needing to make it clear that this isn't some Intel-only thing,
it’s the LLVM OpenMP runtime. Some suggestions that I think would
make sense to help here:
… code owner discussion elided since Chris has endorsed Andrey…
- Clearly updating the readme and such would be appropriate.
Certainly, no problem with
2015 May 06
2
[LLVMdev] libiomp, not libgomp as default library linked with -fopenmp
Why is this thread still going? Isn't the most pragmatic choice to
just make it a build configuration option and be done? Then whoever is
actually packaging it can make the most sensible choice for their
needs..
Should I send a patch so this bikeshed thread can die?