search for: contractions

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, > > Given that the

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

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.

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

Maybe there is a cleaner solution but it seems like adding a 'nocontract' flag is close to the intention of spir-v and is an easy check in the DAGCombiner without 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,

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

Folks, I've been asking around people about the state of FP contract, which seems to be "on" but it's not really behaving like it, at least not as I would expect: int foo(float a, float b, float c) { return a*b+c; } $ clang -target aarch64-linux-gnu -O2 -S fma.c -ffp-contract=on -o - (...) fmul s0, s0, s1 fadd s0, s0, s2 (...) $ clang -target aarch64-linux-gnu -O2 -S fma.c

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