search for: _possibility_

Hi! This is really off-topic but you must know it: In Germay you have to pay for radio and television not if you use it but if you have the _possibility_ to use it. Since there is web radio and things like youtube you have to pay if you have a pc/mac whatever, but not to the service providers but to the almost govermental radio/tv stations, which makes them the richest in the world. Today the highest administration court decided for this solution in...

...etimes non-local. For instance, continuing the previous example, say we're interested in the speculatibility of t = K `udiv` (-1 + (sum.sext >> 32)) We don't _really_ care about doing something intelligent when sum.sext is provably poison. However, we do care about taking into the _possibility_ of sum.sext being poison, which is really just a more precise way of saying that we care about taking into the possibility of sum.sext being commuted into (sext(x) * sext(y)) (in which case the division is not speculatable). And we want to do this with enough formalism in place so that we can writ...

...nments, the competition is, once again, GCC, which still depends on gas and ld. The fundamental problem is that both executable formats and linking problems are EXTREMELY platform specific, so it's typically best to leave it up to the system tools. Assembly/object file generation is a _possibility_ for us only because there is some commonality between platforms (i.e. ELF is used on many platforms). But it's still low on the queue because there already system-provided tools that do it better on every platform we care about (*nix + MinGW/Cygwin). --Owen P.S. I do agree that, if he...

...ple, say we're interested in >> the speculatibility of >> >> t = K `udiv` (-1 + (sum.sext>> 32)) >> >> We don't _really_ care about doing something intelligent when sum.sext >> is provably poison. However, we do care about taking into the >> _possibility_ of sum.sext being poison, which is really just a more >> precise way of saying that we care about taking into the possibility >> of sum.sext being commuted into (sext(x) * sext(y)) (in which case the >> division is not speculatable). > > It seems to me that counterfactuals a...

Not that I sympathize with the OP's manners but... Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> writes: > On May 10, 2008, at 7:55 PM, kr512 wrote: > >> See how gcc is invoked to generate the final executable >> file. This means LLVM is an incomplete backend, >> unfortunately. >> > That's only a convenience. GCC generates assembly code too and calls

> On 11/8/2016 3:32 PM, Sanjoy Das wrote: >> Hi Nuno, Chandler, >> >> Nuno Lopes via llvm-dev wrote: >> > This program stores 8 bits, and leaves the remaining 24 bits >> > uninitialized. It then loads 16 bits, half initialized to %v, half >> > uninitialized. SROA transforms the above function to: >> > >> > define i16 @g(i8 %in) {