search for: cbz

...results dattabrem3 <- read.table("risk factors rem3.txt",header=TRUE) # year 3 results # Set up table of results for the three plots plotextr <- rbind(c("Age","Gender","Seizures","Treatment"),c("10","M","2","CBZ"),c("10","F","2","CBZ"), c("10","M","2","LTG"),c("10","F","2","LTG"),c("10","M","10","CBZ"),c("10","F","10&qu...

Thanks for the background on the concurrent memory model. So, is it sufficient that the loop entry is guarded by condition (cbz at top) for preventing the race? The loop entry will be guarded by condition if loop has been rotated by loop rotate pass. Since LICM runs after loop rotate, we can use ScalarEvolution::isLoopEntryGuardedByCond to check if we can speculatively execute load without causing a race. Is it heavy-hand...

I think gcc is right. It inserted a branch for n == 0 (the cbz at the top), so that's not a problem. In all other regards, this is safe: if you examine the sequence of loads and stores, it eliminated all but the first load and all but the last store. How's that unsafe? If I had to guess, the bug here is that LLVM doesn't want to hoist the load o...

...GCC output: $ aarch64-linux-gnu-g++ -S -o - -O3 -ffast-math -march=armv8-a+simd test.cpp .arch armv8-a+fp+simd .file "test.cpp" .text .align 2 .global _Z3fooii .type _Z3fooii, %function _Z3fooii: .LFB0: .cfi_startproc cbz w0, .L1 adrp x6, globalvar add w5, w0, w0, lsr 31 ldr w3, [x6,#:lo12:globalvar] <== hoist load of globalvar mov w2, 0 asr w5, w5, 1 .L4: cmp w5, w2 add w2, w2, w1 add w4, w3, w1 csel...

...tp://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.den0024a/CJACGJJF.html > > > > Which is correct? > > FWIW, I agree with John here. The example I'd give for the unexpected > behaviour allowed in the spec is: > > .Lwait_for_data: > ldr x0, [x3] > cbz x0, .Lwait_for_data > ldnp x2, x1, [x0] > > where another thread first writes to a buffer then tells us where that > buffer is. For a normal ldp, the address dependency rule means we > don't need a barrier or acquiring load to ensure we see the real data > in the buffer. F...

...JJF.html >>> > >>> > Which is correct? >>> >>> FWIW, I agree with John here. The example I'd give for the unexpected >>> behaviour allowed in the spec is: >>> >>> .Lwait_for_data: >>> ldr x0, [x3] >>> cbz x0, .Lwait_for_data >>> ldnp x2, x1, [x0] >>> >>> where another thread first writes to a buffer then tells us where that >>> buffer is. For a normal ldp, the address dependency rule means we >>> don't need a barrier or acquiring load to ensure we...

...%old, i32 %new _*release acquire*_ %v1 = extractvalue { i32, i1 } %v0, 1 ret i1 %v1 } to the equivalent of the following on AArch64: _*ldxr w8, [x0]*_ cmp w8, w1 b.ne .LBB0_3 // BB#1: // %cmpxchg.trystore stlxr w8, w2, [x0] cbz w8, .LBB0_4 // BB#2: // %cmpxchg.failure mov w0, wzr ret .LBB0_3: // %cmpxchg.nostore clrex mov w0, wzr ret .LBB0_4: orr w0, wzr, #0x1 ret GCC instead generates a ldaxr for the initial lo...

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:32 AM, John Brawn <John.Brawn at arm.com> wrote: > *What about non-x86 architectures?* > > > > Architectures such as ARMv8 support non-temporal instructions and require > barriers such as DMB nshld to order loads and DMB nshst to order stores. > > > > Even ARM's address-dependency rule (a.k.a. the ill-fated >

...;, and "" for both CPU name and target features string. However when I pass the following target specific features string, I get qemu crashing in the CI: -a35,-a53,-a55,-a57,-a72,-a73,-a75,-a76,-aes,-aggressive-fma,-alternate-sextload-cvt-f32-pattern,+altnzcv,+am,-arith-bcc-fusion,-arith-cbz-fusion,-balance-fp-ops,+bti,-call-saved-x10,-call-saved-x11,-call-saved-x12,-call-saved-x13,-call-saved-x14,-call-saved-x15,-call-saved-x18,-call-saved-x8,-call-saved-x9,+ccdp,+ccidx,+ccpp,+complxnum,+crc,-crypto,-custom-cheap-as-move,-cyclone,-disable-latency-sched-heuristic,+dit,+dotprod,-exynos-...

On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: >> I don't understand what you're saying. Are you proposing that all properties (may load, store, side effects) be explicitly added to all instructions, and the pattern only be used to produce warnings? > > Yes. > > The side effect inference is worse than the load/store inference, but

...4l=A3=E1=87'=96=C7S=F5=E1D^h=83R9%=A1= =BD=ED)=9F=BATy4]=E9=AC-Er=C0=82=83=A7=A9=E6S9=BE`P]2C=FA=B5V=C0=BD[n6u=FC= =84f$u=D2P9=D2=94|]=A5=86=8E=E8=98=93O=97=F9cZF=CB,=EE=CC=EB=B4=CC=BB(=C5= =C0=D9=A4=A9=9Aa`=D8=B5=8E=C5=D6 8=94=91PoY=9D=832=88.=E2y1=B5=AC=8Cu=BA=E3<aC=8Cz=88z=A3=8A.=9B=97=83=CBz= =CB=D2=8D=FB=D9V =B3/!Q=A5=95c{=F8,N =B5W=D5=F4=F3=A0=81=82=C4=A2<,)=D2y=D3L=DF{oErv=B9=C6= 6=D8[/w# =D89s=AC=FD=83e=AE=E0&=F3=F0=81O=96*p=BB=CFz&)OC|=99=C4=98=FB>m=E5=C3=B0=D9= =9A=BEL=83=C4=9B3=CD,=B1(=B0=D0=93=BDf=E4,=D2=8FRIgG=8A=FD%=86=C6=81=CC=9A= \=CFum=A6=A1:<=A0=C6h=B8=CD...

Hi all! I'm trying to build the buoh comic reader for centos 6 and my head is getting tired of repeated forceful contact with the wall. I built it on 5.6 without undue problems, but somehow 6.0 is beating me. (and no, the 5.6 binary doesn't work, at least not without a lot of futzing around, on 6.0. tried that first.) before I give gory details, has anyone already done this, from whom

...rrect? >>>>> >>>>> FWIW, I agree with John here. The example I'd give for the unexpected >>>>> behaviour allowed in the spec is: >>>>> >>>>> .Lwait_for_data: >>>>> ldr x0, [x3] >>>>> cbz x0, .Lwait_for_data >>>>> ldnp x2, x1, [x0] >>>>> >>>>> where another thread first writes to a buffer then tells us where that >>>>> buffer is. For a normal ldp, the address dependency rule means we >>>>> don't need...

On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > >> All, >> >> TableGen likes to infer the MCID::UnmodeledSideEffects flag from an instruction's pattern. When an instruction doesn't have a pattern, it is assumed to have side effects. >

...r0, [r4, r1] movs r1, #0 .loc 1 383 2 ldr r0, [r5] .loc 1 385 2 movw r8, :lower16:(_OBJC_IVAR_$_LifeGrid.mRunning-(LPC24_5+4)) movt r8, :upper16:(_OBJC_IVAR_$_LifeGrid.mRunning-(LPC24_5+4)) LPC24_5: add r8, pc .loc 1 383 2 str r1, [r4, r0] .loc 1 385 2 ldr.w r0, [r8] ldrb r0, [r4, r0] cbz r0, LBB24_3 Ltmp269: .loc 1 386 3 movw r10, :lower16:(L_OBJC_SELECTOR_REFERENCES_59-(LPC24_6+4)) vldr.32 s16, LCPI24_0 movt r10, :upper16:(L_OBJC_SELECTOR_REFERENCES_59-(LPC24_6+4)) .loc 1 390 64 movw r6, :lower16:(L_OBJC_SELECTOR_REFERENCES_64-(LPC24_7+4)) movt r6, :upper16:(L_OBJC_SELECTOR...

This round implements all of the review comments from V2 and all patches are now acked. Unless there are any objections I intend to apply later this morning. Ian.

First off, Apologies for the massive patch series... This series boots a 32-bit dom0 kernel to a command prompt on an ARMv8 (AArch64) model. The kernel is the same one as I am currently using with the 32 bit hypervisor I haven''t yet tried starting a guest or anything super advanced like that ;-). Also there is not real support for 64-bit domains at all, although in one or two places I

Hello list. I'm trying to rebuild the 2.6.9.67.0.20.EL kernel, but it fails even without modifications. How did I try it? Created a (non-root) build environment (not a mock ) Installed the kernel.scr.rpm and did a rpmbuild -ba --target=`uname -m` kernel-2.6.spec 2> prep-err.log | tee prep-out.log The build failed at the end: Processing files: kernel-xenU-devel-2.6.9-67.0.20.EL Checking