search for: contraction

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

I don't think the global fast math flag should override the NoContraction decoration as that's mostly the point of that decoration to begin with, to have fine granular control while still having a broad sweeping optimization. Did I miss your point? I feel like I did. On Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 3:42 PM Michael Berg <michael_c_berg at apple.com> wrote: > Ryan, &...

Michael, >From the spec with regards to reassoc: – 15225 Include no re-association as a constraint required by the NoContraction Decoration. I don't see a solution given the situation where -fp-contract=fast and we want to contract. Furthermore, I think a 'nocontract' flag will allow the IR to be more readable in it's intention. The problem is you can have 2 fp arith instructions with no contracts and no rea...

Nicolai, Can you do without the use of -fp-contract=fast (Options.AllowFPOpFusion == FPOpFusion::Fast ) and without Unsafe? As I SPIR-V’s usage of NoContraction flies in the face of both. If so, you should be able to get what you want, as then you are down to just IR flags. You will need a model to generate the correct behavior though in your SPIR-V implementation wrt IR flag emissions. Regards, Michael > On Aug 23, 2018, at 1:35 PM, Nicolai Hähnle...

On 22.08.2018 13:29, Ryan Taylor wrote: > The example starts as SPIR-V with the NoContraction decoration flag on > the fmul. > > I think what you are saying seems valid in that if the user had put the > flag on the fadd instead of 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&...

...ngs are supposed to work from the > current description. > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On 22.08.2018 13:29, Ryan Taylor wrote: >> >>> The example starts as SPIR-V with the NoContraction decoration flag on >>> the fmul. >>> >>> I think what you are saying seems valid in that if the user had put the >>> flag on the fadd instead of the fmul it would not contract and so in this >>> example the user needs to put the NoContraction on the fadd...

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

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

...ma.c -ffp-contract=on -o - (...) fmul s0, s0, s1 fadd s0, s0, s2 (...) $ clang -target aarch64-linux-gnu -O2 -S fma.c -ffp-contract=fast -o - (...) fmadd s0, s0, s1, s2 (...) I'm not sure this works in Fortran either, but defaulting to "on" when (I believe) the language should allow contraction and not doing it is not a good default. i haven't worked out what would be necessary to make it work on a case-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 jus...

...disk, and as currently done in the test-suite, the output is hashed and exactly matched against the reference output. The good for Proposal 2: - no modifications to CMake and Makefiles - no extra space to store the extra reference output - tests both user CFLAGS specified mode and fast-math and fp-contraction=off. The bad for Proposal 2: - compilation time will double: e.g., Polly will optimize both kernels, - memory requirements on the device will almost double: added one extra output array, input arrays are not modified, so no need to duplicate them, - compute time on the device will more than double...

...pple.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 like to see), at -O0, we wouldn't be doing contraction for: >> >> auto x = a*b; >> auto y = x+c; >> >> but we would do that at -O2 since we do mem2reg on x. > > In C, we don't contract (the equivalent of) this unless we&...