search for: dataregs

Hi, I am new in R. I would like to do a ordered probit regression using clm2 (in the ordinal package). My dependent variable y is the way of payment in M&A: y=0 if the deal is financed by stock only, y=1 if the deal is financed by a mix of cash and stock and y=2 if it is by cash only. My independent variables are CollateralB, Cashavailable and Leverage. This is the code I wrote: >

...the FLAGS reg in the second select was MCSE’ed to the earlier CMP in the first select, so here we see the second Select without a CMP: BB#10: derived from LLVM BB %for.body.5 Predecessors according to CFG: BB#3 BB#9 %vreg49<def> = PHI %vreg47, <BB#9>, %vreg48, <BB#3>; DataRegs:%vreg49,%vreg47,%vreg48 //// <=== this SLLI clobbers FLAGS <============ %vreg46<def> = SLLI %vreg5, 1, %FLAGS<imp-def,dead>; DataRegs:%vreg46,%vreg5 BCC 2, <BB#12>, %FLAGS<imp-use> Successors according to CFG: BB#11 BB#12...

...nd select was MCSE’ed to the > earlier CMP in the first select, so here we see the second Select without a CMP: > > BB#10: derived from LLVM BB %for.body.5 > Predecessors according to CFG: BB#3 BB#9 > %vreg49<def> = PHI %vreg47, <BB#9>, %vreg48, <BB#3>; DataRegs:%vreg49,%vreg47,%vreg48 > > //// <=== this SLLI clobbers FLAGS <============ > %vreg46<def> = SLLI %vreg5, 1, %FLAGS<imp-def,dead>; DataRegs:%vreg46,%vreg5 > BCC 2, <BB#12>, %FLAGS<imp-use> > Successors accor...

...d to the >> earlier CMP in the first select, so here we see the second Select without a CMP: >> >> BB#10: derived from LLVM BB %for.body.5 >> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#3 BB#9 >> %vreg49<def> = PHI %vreg47, <BB#9>, %vreg48, <BB#3>; DataRegs:%vreg49,%vreg47,%vreg48 >> >> //// <=== this SLLI clobbers FLAGS <============ >> %vreg46<def> = SLLI %vreg5, 1, %FLAGS<imp-def,dead>; DataRegs:%vreg46,%vreg5 >> BCC 2, <BB#12>, %FLAGS<imp-use> >>...

...t select, so here we see the second Select >>> without a CMP: >>> >>> BB#10: derived from LLVM BB %for.body.5 >>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#3 BB#9 >>> %vreg49<def> = PHI %vreg47, <BB#9>, %vreg48, <BB#3>; >>> DataRegs:%vreg49,%vreg47,%vreg48 >>> >>> //// <=== this SLLI clobbers FLAGS <============ >>> %vreg46<def> = SLLI %vreg5, 1, %FLAGS<imp-def,dead>; >>> DataRegs:%vreg46,%vreg5 >>> BCC 2, <BB#12>, %FL...

...; earlier CMP in the first select, so here we see the second Select without a CMP: >>> >>> BB#10: derived from LLVM BB %for.body.5 >>> Predecessors according to CFG: BB#3 BB#9 >>> %vreg49<def> = PHI %vreg47, <BB#9>, %vreg48, <BB#3>; DataRegs:%vreg49,%vreg47,%vreg48 >>> >>> //// <=== this SLLI clobbers FLAGS <============ >>> %vreg46<def> = SLLI %vreg5, 1, %FLAGS<imp-def,dead>; DataRegs:%vreg46,%vreg5 >>> BCC 2, <BB#12>, %FLAGS<imp-u...

...etFrameIndex (nothing special) - I generate a special address-register ADD instruction in eliminateFrameIndex() to write FramePointer + offset into a new address-register - I use explicit load and store and address-registers in my target instruction patterns: eg (store (add (load AddressRegs:$a), DataRegs:$b), AddressRegs:$dst) This works quite well, but if I access an array on the stack (LLVM generates FrameIndex to access it): int buffer[BUFFER_SIZE]; for(int i = 0; i < end_loop_index; i++) { buffer[i] = i; } then LLVM generates the target instruction "ADD D1, A1, D0" w...

> On Jul 21, 2017, at 10:55 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2017-07-21 22:44 GMT-07:00 Peter Lawrence <peterl95124 at sbcglobal.net <mailto:peterl95124 at sbcglobal.net>>: > Mehdi, > Hal’s transformation only kicks in in the *presence* of UB > > No, sorry I entirely disagree with this assertion: I believe we

--- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bios.c | 47 ++++++++++++++----------------- 1 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bios.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bios.c index 5eec5ed..04ac564 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bios.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_bios.c @@ -181,43 +181,42 @@ struct methods { const char