similar to: Anova(car) SS digits

# Your mailer is set to "none" (default on Windows), # hence we cannot send the bug report directly from R. # Please copy the bug report (after finishing it) to # your favorite email program and send it to # # r-bugs@biostat.ku.dk # ###################################################### I stumbled on this error while doing a classroom demonstration. The error is reproducible,

Dear experts, I just noticed that I get different results conducting type III anova using drop1 or the Anova command from the car package. I suppose I made a mistake and hope you can offer me some help. I have no idea where I got wrong and would be very grateful for explaination as R is new terrain for me. If I run the commands in line, they produce the same results. But if I run them in

Dear All I am trying to use Levene's test (of package car), but I do not understand quite well how to use it. '?levene.test' does not unfortunately provide any example. My data are in a data frame and correspond to 4 factors plus response. Could someone please give me an example about how to use the command levene.test(y, group) ? Thanks in advance, Paul

A rather notorious aspect of TableGen is the time required to run the -emit-dag-isel backend on some targets, including AMDGPU and X86. I added a timing feature to TableGen and timed the AMDGPU run. ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------=== TableGen Phase Timing

I wouldn't want to be too hasty about simply removing the relaxation algorithm. The size and speed of the compiler affects all users, but the time to compile the compiler "only" affects us compiler developers. And I speak as a developer who is heavily affected by the time to compile the AMDGPU backend. One off-the-cuff idea (I haven't even looked at the code yet): could we pass

This is great! Thanks Paul! I think that the 9x reduction in compile-time is well worth the 4% size increase. TableGen's run-time has been a sore point and a source of complaints for quite some time. -- Krzysztof Parzyszek kparzysz at quicinc.com AI tools development -----Original Message----- From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Paul C.

This is the size of the table, not the size of the overall binary, right? I would imagine that a 4% growth in the size of the table is a substantially smaller growth in the total executable size of, say, clang. If the overall growth is minuscule (say, under 1%), then this seems like the clear path forward. I’m also optimistic that we might be able to find other ways to shrink the tables to make

Hi, I have a compiler project using an LLVM backend (compiled for 64 bit windows), and since it has started to get to production level source code sizes the compile times have gotten somewhat extreme (around 30 mins each time). Not sure what is the best metric for measuring whether 30 mins is reasonable. The .ll output file is ~1.5 million lines. A snip of the top of the stats output is