search for: continuant

Thank you. i understood how avx512 vector instructions are written in x86instravx512. i need to define my vector instructions so i wrote; def VMOV_256B_RM : I<0x6F, MRMSrcMem, (outs VR2048:$dst), (ins i32mem:$src), "vmov_256B_rm\t{$src, $dst|$dst, $src}", [(set VR2048:$dst, (v64i32 (scalar_to_vector (loadi32 addr:$src))))],

Thank you; i have changed as follows.is it fine now? def VADD_256B : I<0xFE, MRMDestReg, (outs VR2048:$dst), (ins VR2048:$src1, VR2048:$src2), "VADD_256B\t{$src, $dst|$dst, $src}", [(set VR2048:$dst, (add VR2048:$src1, VR2048:$src2))]]>; Also here i have changed class RI to I. Does it make any difference? On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Craig Topper

Hi, I'd like to understand the order in which patterns are searched during ISEL. In the example below, indices are searched in ascending order from 808 to 3305, then it goes back to 3259 and eventually it matches the wrong instruction. Why did go back from 3305 to 3259? In my XXXGenDAGISel.inc, I can see that the correct instruction is at index 3420 but it never got there. ISEL: Starting

Thank You. I have seen the opcode is 8 bits and all the combinations are already used in llvm x86. Now what to do? On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > Yes its an opcode conflict. You'll have to look through Intel documents > and find an unused opcode. I've only added instructions based on a real > spec so I don't know

Hi Quentin, >> Yes, the dags in view-isel-dags and view-legalize-types-dags are correct (the add operations are here and are their results are used) and the dags are the same. > > And what about view-sched-dags? The DAG looks like I described below (*) > This one should give you what has been selected. So if this is not correct, you have indeed a problem in the selection

This is my new Centos7 DNS server. In logwatch I am seeing: **Unmatched Entries** dispatch 0xb4378008: open_socket(0.0.0.0#5546) -> permission denied: continuing: 1 Time(s) dispatch 0xb4463008: open_socket(::#1935) -> permission denied: continuing: 1 Time(s) dispatch 0xb4464440: open_socket(::#8554) -> permission denied: continuing: 1 Time(s) dispatch 0xb4464440:

I have a samba version 3.024 server joined to a ADS as a "Workstation or server" acting as a file/print server. It is a Debian 4.0 amd64 up to date with stable. ftp works just fine so not network, must be samba config. vary slow file transfer when copying file from one computer but copy from two or more at the same time speed is 10 times faster. You will be copying a 600MG file with one

Let me show you the following simple C code: int main() { int i; for (i = 0; i < 256; i++) { i++; } } In this simple C code, if we use Clang to compile it and debug it: We will get something like this: (gdb) b main Breakpoint 1 at 0x100000f7b: file a.c, line 5. (gdb) r Starting program: a.out [New Thread 0x1403 of process 23435] warning: unhandled dyld version (15) Thread 2

I have an Apple iBook running OS X 10.2 connected to my network via an 802.11b wireless network. When I transfer files via SMB with my Windows 2000 computer, the speed seems reasonable. However, when I connect to a share on my Debian (x86) box (kernel 2.4.19) running Samba 2.2.3a-12 for Debian, the speed is only about a sixth as fast (transferring files to or from the Win2k box is about 6

I appear to have written code which travels backwards through time: http://www.vimeo.com/742590 This disturbs me immensely. If anyone can explain it, that would be cool. I think it''s an illusion brought about by how RSpec wraps the code it executes, and by the sheer weirdness of continuations. -- Giles Bowkett Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com Portfolio:

Hello Im struggling on something... I have one continuous variable (A), and I need to explain it with 4 factors, and maybe one continuous covariate. And of course, my variable A is not normal at all (it's a duration in seconds, whole numbers). What can I do? I would know how do deal with it if I had one factor, maybe two, but in that case Im really not sure what I am supposed to do to

If we had a very naïve way of generating IR, in the 'continue' case you would actually see TWO branch instructions: one to implement the 'continue' statement, and one as part of the control flow of the 'for' loop. The branch for the 'continue' statement would have the source location of the 'continue' and the branch for the control-flow of the 'for'

Have you read http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html and http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html ? http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html#instruction-selector describes how to define a store instruction. -Eli On 7/6/2017 6:51 PM, hameeza ahmed via llvm-dev wrote: > Please correct me i m stuck at this point. > > On Jul 6, 2017 5:18 PM, "hameeza ahmed"

I need help translating extensions.conf to AEL: [default] exten => _X.,1,Set(DID=${EXTEN:6}) exten => _X.,n,Goto(continue,1) exten => _1X.,1,Set(DID=${EXTEN:7}) exten => _1X.,n,Goto(continue,1) exten => continue,1,Noop(${DID}) exten => continue,n,Set(GROUP(IAX)=incoming) exten => continue,n,GotoIf($[${MATH(${GROUP_COUNT(incoming at IAX)}+${GROUP_COUNT(outgoing at

Hi paulr: Thanks for your kindly response. Maybe I don't describe my question cleanly, let me show more information. From my side, I notice that whether we are in the continue keyword mode or we are in the right brace mode, the target of br instruction is the same, i.e. for loop Continue Keyword Mode: ; <label>:6: ; preds = %3 br label

also i further run the following command; llc -debug filer-knl_o3.ll and its output is attached here. by looking at the output can we say that legalization runs fine and the error is due to instruction selection/ pattern matching which is not yet implemented? so do i need to worry and try to correct it at this stage or should i move forward to implement instruction selection/ pattern matching?

At one point someone showed me how to view the output of how instruction selection is happening. The output I'm talking about is shown below. Can someone remind me how to generate it? (I really should start writing down stuff like this) ========================= Orignal Match Result ===================================== Selecting: 0x2ebfa78: glue = EsenciaISD::SET_FLAG 0x2ebee18, 0x2ebef20,

Hello R users, I am working with the GAM to inspect the effect of some factors (year, area) and continuous variables (length, depth, latitude and longitude) on the intensity and prevalence of the common parasite Anisakis. I would like introduce interaction in my models, both "continuous variables-continuous variables" and "continuous variables-factor". I have read some

If the script is run during the system startup then it says "Continue with stateless boot". If the script is run from the command line then it says "Quite and Exit". Signed-off-by: Darryl L. Pierce <dpierce at redhat.com> --- scripts/ovirt-config-setup | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++-- scripts/ovirt-firstboot | 2 +- 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

On 02/12/2017 01:40 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 02/11/2017 08:56 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote: >> This seems to be bug 1103439 which was 'fixed' for Centos6. >> >> What should I do about this? Is there a SELinux policy to apply or >> should I the avoid upd-ports option in Bind? > > > It looks like that bug was assigned to the selinux-policy