search for: contracted

Hi everyone, I am relatively new to rspec and I am running into a wall in testing my views. I have a RESTful resource Contracts with a nested resource of Line_items. I am trying to figure out how to test the "edit" form of the Line_items. What complicates this is the nested routing and how to account for it, and that there is a partial form (_form.haml) that both the edit.haml and

I've searched the archive for this mailing list and the bug list for OpenSSH for this, and I'm finding nothing. I'd appreciate it if somoene could point me to an existing thread about this. (I know that other people are aware of the problem, though, so I'm a bit surprised to find nothing.) We're running OpenSSH under Solaris 10 using SMF instead of a legacy init script. SMF

...y >> clear. >> >> Right now the DAGCombiner logic doesn't seem to be able to handle the >> case of having fast math globally with instruction level flags to turn off >> fast math. Right now, either fast math is global and it's assumed >> everything can be contracted or fast math is not global and we contract if >> the contract flag is present on the current instruction. I could be missing >> something. >> >> -Ryan >> >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 1:36 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> >> wrote: >> &g...

...d its intentions are very > clear. > > Right now the DAGCombiner logic doesn't seem to be able to handle the case > of having fast math globally with instruction level flags to turn off fast > math. Right now, either fast math is global and it's assumed everything can > be contracted or fast math is not global and we contract if the contract > flag is present on the current instruction. I could be missing something. > > -Ryan > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 1:36 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> > wrote: > >> If we have this: >> r =...

...the DAGCombiner logic doesn't seem to be able to >>>> handle the case of having fast math globally with instruction >>>> level flags to turn off fast math. Right now, either fast >>>> math is global and it's assumed everything can be contracted >>>> or fast math is not global and we contract if the contract >>>> flag is present on the current instruction. I could be >>>> missing something. >>>> >>>> -Ryan >>>> >>>> On T...

...the fmul it would not contract and so in > this example the user needs to put the NoContraction on the fadd though > I'm not sure that's a good expectation of the user. On the surface, I > think that if an operation didn't have the contract flag than it > wouldn't be contracted, regardless of what flags any other operation has. Okay, I see that the SPIR-V spec specifically calls out this example. Unless there are conflicting requirements with another frontend, I'd say we should make sure LLVM is aligned with SPIR-V here. Something along the lines of (in LangRef):...

...out breaking anything else and its intentions are very clear. Right now the DAGCombiner logic doesn't seem to be able to handle the case of having fast math globally with instruction level flags to turn off fast math. Right now, either fast math is global and it's assumed everything can be contracted or fast math is not global and we contract if the contract flag is present on the current instruction. I could be missing something. -Ryan On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 1:36 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > If we have this: > r = (X * Y) + Z > > And we want that t...

On 14 October 2016 at 15:50, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > These 3 tests are passing with the following configurations: > -O3 -ffp-contract=off > -O3 -ffp-contract=on > -O0 -ffp-contract=off > -O0 -ffp-contract=on > > They are not passing at: > -Ofast -ffp-contract=on > -Ofast -ffp-contract=off Let's separate completely FP-contract and

Hi, I would like your opinions on the contract we have between the LLVM IR and the backends. * Context * Right now, the backends are supposed to be able to perform instruction selection on any valid LLVM IR. Although this is *not* something I want to change for GlobalISel, I thought I brought that up on the mailing list to discuss the implications. In particular, in the past, some people

Hello Again Rails Folk! I''m trying to creat a page similar to what the person is doing here... http://mudabone.com/aietc/?page_id=410 Instead of doing it the way he/she has, I decided to use RJS files, or at least I tried. Here''s my view <%= start_form_tag %> <%= javascript_include_tag "prototype" %> <p> Union: <div id="union">

Apologies for cross-posting. We''ve been asked to do a job for a client who wants to embrace agile development methodologies. Hurrah! However, our standard contract was written for the 1980s. It is full of phrases like "agreed specification" and "change request procedure" and so on. I was wondering, how do other people get around this in contract forms with

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > I don't think that Clang/LLVM uses it by default on x86_64. If you're using -Ofast, however, that would explain it. I recommend looking at -O3 vs -O0 and make sure those are the same. -Ofast enables -ffast-math, which can legitimately cause differences. > The following tests pass at "-O3" and

the case: i have two classes: 1) class Contract < ActiveRecord::Base serialize :addons end 2) class Addon < ActiveRecord::Base end Now i do the following in contract_controller: def create @contract = Contract.new(params[:contract]) @contract.user_id = session[:user_id] @contract.customer_id = params[:customer_id] @contract.pending = 1 @contract.addons = Array.new end def update

Hi list, Well I really didn't want to see things get to this point, but Sherman at Sipura along with their President Jan F. leave me no other choice. SIPURA has been provided a letter from our attorney for Breach of Contract and damages. They have yet to respond. A quick background. 1. Sherman (SIPURA's Director of Marketing), stated that we would do a join press release for the Oct

On 21.08.2018 16:08, Ryan Taylor via llvm-dev wrote: > So I have a test case where: > > %20 = fmul nnan arcp float %15, %19 > %21 = fadd reassoc nnan arcp contract float %20, -1.000000e+00 > > is being contracted in DAG to fmad. Is this correct since the fmul has > no reassoc or contract fast math flag? By having the reassoc and contract flags on fadd, the frontend is essentially saying "different rounding on the value produced by the fadd is okay". So I'd say contracting this to fma i...

Hello R experts, The following problem outstrips my current programming knowledge. I have a dataframe with two fields that looks like the following: ID Contract 01 1 01 1 02 2 02 3 02 1 03 2 03 2 03 2 03 1 03 1 03 1 etc... I would like to end up with a dataframe with one row per ID where the value in the contract field would be the

Hello R-experts, I am having difficulties with 3D plotting (i.e. the evolution of various forward curves through time). I have two comma seperated files both ordered by date (in the first column) one containing contracts (meaning forward delivery months from YEAR_ & Letter "F" ... January through letter "Z" ... December) and the other holding the closing price of the

...by-case basis (what kinds of fusions does C allow?) to make sure we don't do all or nothing, but if we don't want to start that conversation now, then I'd recommend we just turn it all the way to 11 (like GCC) and let people turn it off if they really mean it. The rationale is that: * Contracted operations increase precision (less rounding steps) * It performs equal or faster on all architectures I know (true everywhere?) * Users already expect that (certainly, GCC users do) * Makes us look good on benchmarks :) A recent SPEC2k6 comparison Linaro did for AArch64, enabling -ffp-contract=fa...

Hi, I would like to provide a summary of the different proposals on how to fix the test-suite to make it succeed when specifying extra CFLAGS "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on". I would like to expose the issue and proposed ways to fix it to other potential reviewers that could provide extra feedback. We also need to decide which proposal (or combination of) to implement and

On Sep 10, 2016, at 3:33 AM, Steve Canon <scanon at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> Pretty much. In particular, imagine a user trying to debug an unexpected floating point result caused by conversion of a*b + c into fma(a, b, c). >> >> I think that’s unavoidable, because of the way the optimization levels work. Even fma contraction is on by default (something I’d