search for: comissioned

On 29 August 2013 10:12, Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> wrote: > But this is another case. LLVM IR distinguishes between ordered and unordered compare and X86 backend has appropriate instructions. I think LLVM uses ordered/unordered compare to mean something different to what the x86 instructions do. For example, "not equal": fcmp une == unordered not

Hi all, I'm trying to generate code containing an ordered float compare for equality, and select. The resulting code however has an unordered compare and some Boolean logic that I think could be eliminated. In C syntax the code looks like this: float x, y; int a, b, c if(x == y) // Rotate the integers { int t; t = a; a = b;

Hi Marc, I'm a bit confused. Isn't the standard compare (i.e. the one for a language like C) an ordered one? I tried converting some C code to LLVM C++ API code with the online demo, and it uses FCMP_OEQ. No, if you have: x = NaN y = NaN then the comparison: (x == y) is false. Which is what your seeing from your first post and is the standard IEEE expected behavior.

Both ZF and PF will be set if unordered, so the code below is IEEE correct...you want to generate 'fcmp ueq' instead of 'fcmp oqe' This is the resulting x86 assembly code: movss xmm0,dword ptr [ecx+4] ucomiss xmm0,dword ptr [ecx+8] sete al setnp dl test dl,al mov edx,edi cmovne edx,ecx cmovne ecx,esi cmovne

Hello, I''ve tried just some minutes ago to download the sourcecode of lustre from [1], but it failed with this error: An error occurred while processing your request. Reference #50.663007d9.1206002944.16ba5fe1 Does anybody have some hints how to get the lustre source code then? I need this tarball for the debian packaging. If someone could point me to an alternative download

Hi All, I'm still pretty new to using R - and I was hoping I might be able to get some advice as to how to use 'apply' or a similar function instead of using nested for loops. Right now I have a script which uses nested for loops similar to this: i <- 1 for(a in Alpha) { for (b in Beta) { for (c in Gamma) { for (d in Delta) { for (e in Epsilon) { Output[i] <-

Hi Marc, I'm a bit confused. Isn't the standard compare (i.e. the one for a language like C) an ordered one? I tried converting some C code to LLVM C++ API code with the online demo, and it uses FCMP_OEQ. Cheers, Nicolas From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Marc B. Reynolds Sent: Tuesday, 27 May, 2008 14:07 To: 'LLVM

But this is another case. LLVM IR distinguishes between ordered and unordered compare and X86 backend has appropriate instructions. But during DAG selection we just lose this information and always generate unordered fcmp. I.e. in case of ordered fcmp the vcomiss should be generated, and in case of unordered - vucomiss. - Elena -----Original Message----- From: Dr D. Chisnall [mailto:dc552 at

On 29 Aug 2013, at 08:19, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > If so, a compare that used that instruction would have to become more > like an "invoke" with a landingpad for the exception and so on, > wouldn't it? The current fcmp can already distinguish between ordered > and unordered, because ucomiss provides that information. There are currently

Hi, I'm looking at scalar and packed instructions in X86. The instruction VCOMISS is scalar. May I remove SSEPackedSingle/SSEPackedDouble domain from it? defm VUCOMISS : sse12_ord_cmp<0x2E, FR32, X86cmp, f32, f32mem, loadf32, "ucomiss", SSEPackedSingle>, TB, VEX, VEX_LIG; defm VUCOMISD : sse12_ord_cmp<0x2E, FR64, X86cmp, f64,

Hi All, On my two-DC setup (dc00 and dc01 - Used to be a 4-Dc setup but 02 and 03 are gone), I've noticed the following errors which I am unable to fix.. Any hints? * Basic dbcheck is clean. [root at dc00 ~]# samba-tool dbcheck Checking 327 objects Checked 327 objects (0 errors) * Cross-NCS shows two errors related to a de-comissionned DC (dc02) and cannot auto-fix this.. How do I fix

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:20:21 -0500 (EST) > "Vincent S. Cojot via samba" <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> >> Hi All, >> >> On my two-DC setup (dc00 and dc01 - Used to be a 4-Dc setup but 02 >> and 03 are gone), I've noticed the following errors which I am unable >> to

Hi Shakeel, I had the same problem building app_swift (1.6..) myself and searched the web far-and-wide for a solution. I eventually contacted Darren Sessions -- who was maintaining that plug-in -- about a month ago. He was involved in another project and said he might be able get to it after a few weeks. But, since then, his website http://www.darrensessions.com/ has gone out of comission. I

On 29 August 2013 06:31, Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> wrote: > Should I open a ticket for this? I think he was saying this is intended behaviour. Isn't the difference between ucomiss and comiss just whether an exception is raised for NaN? If so, a compare that used that instruction would have to become more like an "invoke" with a landingpad for the

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 (It would be probably good idea to redirect this discussion to -stable@, redirected) Hi, Danny, Danny Braniss wrote: > It's no longer working (for me) under 7.2, and so far > I am not getting any feedback, so since it seems that > this particular hardware has reached EOL, I was wondering > if, > a) it's true, > b) drop

hello, I''m working on a image bank for a nature photographer well known here in Brazil, and I''m looking for a rails developer to outsource the programming to. I''m looking for somebody with a good grip on using rails with a lot of image uploading and processing, thumbnailing etc, as well as tagging and searching in general. Work would be entirely by telecommute. Unless

Should I open a ticket for this? - Elena From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 19:51 To: Demikhovsky, Elena Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Ordered / Unordered FP compare are not handled properly on X86 On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com<mailto:elena.demikhovsky at

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:20:21 -0500 (EST) "Vincent S. Cojot via samba" <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > Hi All, > > On my two-DC setup (dc00 and dc01 - Used to be a 4-Dc setup but 02 > and 03 are gone), I've noticed the following errors which I am unable > to fix.. Any hints? > > * Basic dbcheck is clean. > > [root at dc00 ~]# samba-tool

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:19:10 -0500 (EST) "Vincent S. Cojot via samba" <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > > > On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:20:21 -0500 (EST) > > "Vincent S. Cojot via samba" <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> Hi All, > >> > >>

Can someone recommend a good web host for ROR? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.