search for: deduction

...LVm. I’ve seen the tutorial [4]. I would like to discuss ways of improving other optimization passes similarly (or some examples which have already been implemented). 2. 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? 3. Improve Liveness related capabilities of Attributor. Again I want to consider whether some attribute deduction can help liveness (dis)provers. For example NoRetur...

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 s...

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 for it directly, but they can be I assume. You...

...op 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: earnings shelf 2 > lst item cat 1 item 1.1 A 2 item 1.2 B 3 item 1.3 C how to get a result frame like > result item loc cat 1 item 1.1: earnings <sep> item 1.2: w2...

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())

...ch is another discussion. Now, to the point: If you open nounwind.ll, it has a bunch of test cases and I don't think it's a good idea to run Attributor in all of them at first. So, break it into individual tests. First of all, note that the Attributor follows an optimistic path to attribute deduction. That is, you always start assuming that an attribute is valid until you have info that it isn't. Seeing TEST 1 should be relatively obvious that it doesn't have something that breaks the initial assumption, that's why you see no change in state between calls to updateImpl(). But now we...

...rote: > > > 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++ programs resulting in such IR would > have UB in practice). > I'm also concerned about undef. It isn't clear that we can reasonably ensure that all things involving und...

...l 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++ programs resulting in such IR would > have UB in practice). > > > > I'm also concerned about undef. It isn't clear that we can reasonably > ensure that a...

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

...ion 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 then we could do some work in Clang (or other FEs) to try to form larger comdats when safe to do so. For example with C++, inline method definitions inside of class bodies could have a merged comdat I think because the cl...

...e everywhere - as you say, LTO aside, we can't do that). > The result would be failing to optimize the bodies of linkonce_odr > functions in any way which was externally detectable such as this. I > think that would be *much* worse than losing the ability to do > function attribute deduction for such functions? 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. -Hal > > Thus...

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

...> > 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++ programs resulting in such IR would > > have UB in practice). > > > > > > > > I'm also concerned about undef. It isn't clear that...

...money if that was available? Even if it was $1? >> >I mean, 100k people donating $1 each could go a long way. >> >> >> Setting up some sort of tax-exempt organization (similar to the FSF) may be useful here. I don't mind chipping in my £1 worth, but getting a tax deduction at the same time would persuade more people to donate, I think. >> >> _____________________________________________________________ >> Want a new web-based email account ? ---> http://www.firstlinux.net >> >> --- >8 ---- >> List archives: http://www.xiph...

...don't know of anything in LLVM that does this today, but it would become an important invariant. 4) Work a lot harder to do internalizing and removing of this restriction. Pretty horrible. But I think it is correct. As a slight modification to #1 and #2, we could have a very carefully crafted deduction rule where we only deduce function attributes for functions prior to any modification of their function bodies. Such attributes should be conservatively correct because we would never lift new code into the function bodies. This would at least allow us to do bottom-up deduction to catch interproced...

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++ programs resulting in such IR would have UB in practice). I think there are non-(non-deterministic) problematic cases too. The following won't happen today since `readnone` does not imply `sa...

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:

...er all translation units for C++ linkonce_odr functions, which you can't do. The result would be failing to optimize the bodies of linkonce_odr functions in any way which was externally detectable such as this. I think that would be *much* worse than losing the ability to do function attribute deduction for such functions? Thus, with an externally_available function, the CSE in Sanjoy's original > example should be forbidden. Richard's example again demonstrates this > principle, although in this case the non-determinism is in the choice of a > globally-visible implementation tec...