similar to: Significant performance difference with a split call to opt

Hi, I reproduced the test on many individual files and got very variable results... it seems the computer's workload when running the test suite influenced the execution speed a lot more than standard deviation shows. I'll withdraw the performance claim until I can get consistent results (changed subject line), apologies for the confusion. What I can still show easily is that the

Hi, This answer is a bit slow; I tried to look into the sequence details but 250 passes plus the complex bitcode of test suite examples makes this pretty hard. In the meantime I stumbled upon llvm-diff which abstracts away the most significant difference, namely instruction renaming. It also ignores function attributes so calling conventions are silently unified; but at least it gives empty

Hello again, > It may be desirable to sort the table before writing the bitcode out, > adding Peter to the thread for his opinion. Thanks for this! Now it seems I've been optimistic about this result. I have instrumented the test suite to check it on a wider amount of files and quickly discovered that it fails for larger optimization sequences. In particular, the default -O3 set

Hi Mehdi, Thank you for mentioning this tool, I was looking for something like this. By default the analyzer produces identical output on both files, but a complete -dump shows that the storage order of the symbol table is different. This would explain why text files are not affected: the symbols are used directly in text form so there is no need for this table. I suppose that settles the

I finally got back to this. It is a known and endemic issue that pops up from time to time. The issues I’m aware of so far are related to random sets being used where strict order is required. This may result in non-deterministic uselists issued by the bitcode/assembly writers. There is no great way to go about pro-active testing for this. Collecting the tests so far and running them as

Hi Eli, Unfortunately the differences remain, I do not observe a significant change in the output besides the fact that it's random. I noticed that running opt without options on the random file changes the order of references in the predecessors of basic blocks (sample below). Further invocations of opt are idempotent. I don't know of this information is stored in the bytecode file

Hi LLVM, I'm currently setting up some tools to investigate the influence of the order of optimization passes on the performance of compiled programs -nothing exceptional here. I noticed something inconvenient with opt, namely that splitting a call does not always give the same output: % llvm-stress > stress.ll % opt -dse -verify -dce stress.ll -o stress-1.bc % opt -dse stress.ll |

Dear R-list, In the R-book, p.464, Michael Crawley recommends that error bars for bar plots of normally distributed continuous response variables with categorical explanatory variables be given by 1/2 of the least significant difference, where the least significant difference is defines as qt(0.975,degrees_of_freedom)*standard_error_of_the_difference. The idea is that the above quantity

The manual says rsync can be used as an improved cp command. If S1 and S2 are (local) source files or directories and T is an (local) existing directory, is it safe to think that $ rsync -r S1 S2 T does the same thing as $ cp -r S1 S2 T , assuming no trailing slashes in S1, S2? -- View this message in context:

Dear all, I am having trouble creating summary tables using aggregate function. given the following table: Var1 Var2 Var3 dummy S1 T1 I 1 S1 T1 I 1 S1 T1 D 1 S1 T1 D 1 S1 T2 I 1 S1 T2 I 1 S1 T2 D 1 S1 T2 D 1 S2

Hi, I'm trying to get maximum likelihood estimates of \alpha, \beta_0 and \beta_1, this can be achieved by solving the following three equations: n / \alpha + \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n} ln(\psihat(i)) - \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n} ( ln(x_i + \psihat(i)) ) = 0 \alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n} 1/(psihat(i)) - (\alpha+1) \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n} ( 1 / (x_i + \psihat(i)) ) = 0 \alpha \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n} (

Hello there, I wish to solve the following nonlinear System of equations: + u1 - Vmax11*S1/(S1 + Km11 *(1 + S2/Km21)) - Vmax12*S1/( S1 + Km12 *(1+S2/Km22)) == 0 + u2 - Vmax22*S2/(S2 + Km22 *(1 + S1/Km12)) - Vmax21*S2/( S2 + Km21 *(1+S1/Km11)) == 0 + Vmax11*S1/(S1 + Km11 *(1 + S2/Km21)) + Vmax12*S1/( S1 + Km12 *(1+S2/Km22)) - d1*P1 == 0 + Vmax22*S2/(S2 + Km22 *(1 + S1/Km12)) + Vmax21*S2/( S2 +

I have three modules: ----------------------------------------------------------------- s1.ll: %0 = type <{ i32, i32 }> define void @s1(%0* byval %myStruct) nounwind { return: ret void } ----------------------------------------------------------------- s2.ll: %0 = type <{ i32, i32 }> define void @s2(%0* byval %myStruct) nounwind { return: ret void }

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:01:21 -0500 (CDT) Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Morten Ofstad wrote: > > > This is my first post on this mailing list, so bear with me... My name > > is Morten Ofstad and I work for Hue AS (www.hue.no), a company that > > makes 3D Visualization software. We are looking into using LLVM for JIT > >

Hello, I have a problem with rsync and hard links : I have 1 folder : P, with 2 subfolders : S1 and S2 S2 contains a lot of hard links to file stored in folder S1. P : -S1 -S2 (S2 files hard links to S1 files) I would like to rsync the folder P to another computer, but each sub folder S1 (110 Go) and S2 (10 Go + hard link to 100 Go of S1) contains thousands of thousands of

Hi James, So does this mean if the instruction could set the overflow flag, the instruction should not have [(set ... )] in it's pattern, i see this is the difference in instruction description for the mips case. I'm wondering how llvm knows when to use certain compare instructions such as SETNE or SETUNE? And for sign or zero extending loads? I can see the PatFrags described and the

Hello everyone, I am stuck with an apparently simple issue : i) I have two sets S1 and S2, each containing a large number of integers, say zip codes. ii) Now, I just want to test whether a particular zip code belong to S1 or S2 or neither of them. iii) If it belongs to S1, the area/region gets a particular label, say 1; if it belongs to S2, it gets a label 2 and if it doesnot belong to either S1

Hi Jean-Marc, Thanks a lot for reviewing this huge assembly function! silk_warped_autocorrelation_FIX_c()'s kernel part is for( n = 0; n < length; n++ ) { tmp1_QS = silk_LSHIFT32( (opus_int32)input[ n ], QS ); /* Loop over allpass sections */ for( i = 0; i < order; i++ ) { /* Output of allpass section */ tmp2_QS = silk_SMLAWB(

Hi everybody, consider please an optimization problem: minimize sum S1+S2 Subject to : y - x =< A + S1 x - y =< A + S2 and we want to add two more constraints: y - x =< B - S3 x - y =< B - S4 where A is a small constant value and B is a large constant value, S1 and S2 are surplus and S3

Hey! Could you please take a quick look at what I have done? Somehow I get wrong results using the anova(lm()) combination compared to doing a two way ANOVA by hand. Running: Data<-read.table("Data.txt"); g<-lm(ExM~S1*S2,Data); anova(g); Gives: Analysis of Variance Table Response: ExM Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) S1 1 4.3679