search for: deducting

Hi all, My name is Fahad Nayyar. I am an undergraduate student from India. I am interested to participate in GSOC under the project “Improve inter-procedural analyses and optimizations”. I have been using LLVM for the past 8 months. I have written various intra-procedural analysis in LLVM as FunctionPass for my course projects and research projects. But I’ve not contributed to the LLVM

After I spend some time working with the function attribute* deduction pass** [1,3], I would like to propose a "proper" organization***. Why? Because we do not derive nearly as many attributes as we could****, while we do maintain various (separate and diffently organized) "data-flow-like analyses" to do so. What else? I propose a single optimistic data-flow

Hi Fahad, > > Improve dynamic memory related capabilities of Attributor. For example > Improve HeapToStackConversions. Maybe such deductions can help safety > (dis)provers. For example, can we improve the use-after-free bug detection > using some attributes? > Stefan should know more about H2S. Regarding the use-after-free, I don't > think there's currently any plans

Hi, I know I can do this with a for loop with strsplit and grep, but is there more efficient way? Given a data dataframe (input) and a category column (lst), > input item loc 1 item 1.1: earnings <sep> item 1.2: w2 <sep> shelf 1 2 item 1.3: deductions drawer 1 3 item 1.1:

Dear List, Below is a simple, standard loss model that takes into account the terms of an insurance policy: deductible <- 15 coverage.limit <- 75 insurance.threshold <- deductible + coverage.limit tmpf <- function() { loss <- rlnorm(rpois(1, 3), 2, 5) sum(ifelse(loss > insurance.threshold, loss - coverage.limit, pmin(loss, deductible))) } net <- replicate(1000000, tmpf())

Hi Farad, > I tried to do this for the NoUnwind attribute Hmm, I don't have experience with this attribute but it seems like a good starting point since it doesn't do much. First of all, be sure that you run with: opt -passes=attributor -attributor-disable=false This uses the new pass manager which is another discussion. Now, to the point: If you open nounwind.ll, it has a bunch of

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:25 PM Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > Hal Finkel wrote: > > > But it is not all optimizations that are the problem. Rather, it > > seems like a select few (e.g. things involving collapsing allowed > > non-determinism in atomics), and losing those optimizations seems > > better than generally losing

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com>, "Duncan P. N. Exon Smith" >

I am working on my thesis in which i have couple of independent variables that are categorical in nature and the depndent variable is dichotomus. Initially I run univariate analysis and added the variables with significant p-values (p<0.25) in my full model. I have three confusions. Firstly, I am looking for confounding variables by using formula "(crude beta-cofficient - adjusted

A clarification pointed out by David Majnemer: what I"m really talking about is "comdat or comdat-semantic-equivalents" which include linkonce_odr and available_externally. As a further strategy to recover optimizations: On platforms with comdat support, we could also teach function attrs that deduction is safe for functions which are only called from within their own comdat. And

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Philip Reames" > <listmail at philipreames.com>, "Duncan P. N. Exon Smith" > <dexonsmith at apple.com>, "Sanjoy Das" >

Hello With LLVM 4.0 my code is being compiled correctly. but with LLVM 7.0.1 I am getting following error; *llvm-7.0.1.src/include/llvm/IR/Module.h:356:43: error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'SmallVector<llvm::Type *, sizeof...(ArgsTy)>' SmallVector<Type*, sizeof...(ArgsTy)> ArgTys{Args...};* What is the reason? Please help. Thank You

As I've spent really too long today investigating this, I want to document this in a public email, even though there's nothing really that interesting here. One thing you find from search for VDD 6.7 / VixDiskLib_QueryAllocatedBlocks issues with Google is that we must be one of the very few users out there. And the other thing is that it's quite broken. All testing was done using

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:18 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > > To: "Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>, "Hal Finkel" < > hfinkel at anl.gov> > > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>,

When I said I'd pay my £1 worth, I didn't mean it literally. Anyway, the point about larger companies is a good one. Earliers posts talk about if games companies would be willing to give funds to develop ogg, if these donations are tax deductable surely they are much more likely to give. The question is how legal is this? If they are getting direct benift from ogg, can that make tax

Yea, I'm pretty sad about all of this. I'm also not seeing a lot of awesome paths forward. Here is the least bad strategy I can come up with. Curious if folks think this is sufficient: 1) Stop deducing function attributes within comdats by examining the bodies of the functions (so that we remain free to transform the bodies of functions). 2) Teach frontends to emit (even at O0!!!)

Hal Finkel wrote: > But it is not all optimizations that are the problem. Rather, it > seems like a select few (e.g. things involving collapsing allowed > non-determinism in atomics), and losing those optimizations seems > better than generally losing function-attribute deduction. If we go by the langref, then optimizations that fold undef are also problematic (though most C/C++

When I dial a SIP phone which is specified in the sip.conf, but the phone is not connected, Asterisk gives the message "The user at Extension XXX is on the phone ...." Shouldn't the message be the unavailable message? Is there something wrong with my set up or is this a "bug" with Asterisk? Simon Brown

On 02/24/2016 08:10 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev wrote: >> On 2016-Feb-24, at 19:46, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:34 PM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith >>> <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:35 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > > To: "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com>, "Duncan P. N. Exon > > Smith" <dexonsmith at apple.com>, "Sanjoy Das" > >