search for: disjunctions

Hi: I am trying to query pubmed abstracts using the following syntax: url= "http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/esearch.fcgi?" search = paste(url, "db=pubmed&term=", queryTerm1, "+AND+", queryTerm2,"+OR+",queryTerm3, "+OR+", queryTerm4, "[abstract]&retmax=100&usehistory=y", sep="") docId <-

Dear all ReadeRs I was finding a quick method to improve test readability adding or constructing (with your help....) one or more function that allow what follow. Please consider Trt<-c(1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,5,5,5,5) Block<-c(1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) AD2DAT<-c(1.44,2.32,1.68,1.28,0.12,0.08,0.24,0.52,0.12,0.08,0.16,0.28,0.16,0.08,0.12,0.12,0.16,0.08,0.32,0.76)

...> if (x > 2 && x < 5) { > ... > } else { > // known: x <= 2 || x >= 5 > // CVP produces a range for x: [5, 3) (no loss of information here at > all) > if (x == 4) ... // CVP folds this to false > } > > > Okay, so it does try to handle simple disjunctions. > So CVP can handle (simple) disjunctive information. Other ValueTracking > analyses handle simple patterns as well, though probably at this time those > can't use this new stuff unless we go all in with e-SSA. > Not sure how to export the information to clients, though. Suppor...

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 03/01/2017 05:30 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote: > > So, https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32056 is an example showing our > current TBAA tree for union generation is definitely irretrievably broken. > I'll be honest here. I'm pretty sure your proposal doesn't go far

Hi, I've got some boolean data in a data.frame in the form: X Y Z A B C [1] T T F T F F [2] F T T F F F . . . What I want to do is create a new column which is the logical disjunction of several of the columns. Just like: new.column <- data$X | data$Y | data$Z However I don't want to hard code the particular columns into the

Hello there, Offending source code is ????? if(? ( BattVoltage> 129 ) || ( BattVoltage < 144 ) ) Maybe swap || for && would be better. This problem I found by using cppcheck. It said [rhino.c:190]: (warning) Logical disjunction always evaluates to true: BattVoltage> 129 || BattVoltage < 144. Regards David Binderman

Hi, Maybe using LDAP REFERRAL ??? ----------------------------------- St?phane PURNELLE stephane.purnelle@corman.be Service Informatique Corman S.A. Tel : 00 32 087/342467 |---------+---------------------------------------------------------> | | "Lapin(c)" <lapin@linagora.com> | | |

...al and other types of > expressions to form complex or relational (match) expressions http://git.netfilter.org/nftables/tree/doc/nft.txt#n680 However it's not clear if logical combinations are actually possible? https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1202#c1 explicitly states that disjunctions are definitely not supported, so logical OR, and XOR are right out, and given that I'd say NAND almost certainly is too. The only combining operator for matches is AND. Also, rummaging through the grammar file seems to confirm that there are only _bitwise_ operators. -- You are receiving th...

*Hi all,* * * *The following is my general idea for the project. For a complete query parser I still need to consider more details. Please give me feedback because the description of this project is lack of detailed information, and I can submit my proposal without giant deviation.* * * design principle of query parsing: 1) better understanding user input. All search engine do is understanding

> > Sigh > I should have taken the time to give a better example. > The must-alias part is irrelevant to an example (it only requires > read-onlyness) > > You said "LICM doesn't move calls, so we'd never really care about > must-alias for promotion". I was just pointing out other things move calls > any may want to know. > > If you want an example

This didn't work as I tried with 197.parser. it works without "-Wl,-disable-opt" switch though. [197.parser]$ llvm-gcc analyze-linkage.c and.c build-disjuncts.c extract-links.c fast-match.c idiom.c main.c massage.c parse.c post-process.c print.c prune.c read-dict.c utilities.c xalloc.c word-file.c strncasecmp.c -Wa,-disable-opt -Wl,-disable-opt -lm -o llvm_parser [197.parser]$

I'm trying to understand what is the result we'd seek in the example in D38569 (pasting here for quick access) double f(double a) { double b; double c,d; double (*fp) (double) __attribute__ ((const)); /* Partially redundant call */ if (a < 2.0) { fp = sin; c = fp (a); } else { c = 1.0; fp = cos; } d = fp (a);

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Long Fei wrote: > > This didn't work as I tried with 197.parser. it works without > "-Wl,-disable-opt" switch though. > > [197.parser]$ llvm-gcc analyze-linkage.c and.c build-disjuncts.c > extract-links.c fast-match.c idiom.c main.c massage.c parse.c post-process.c > print.c prune.c read-dict.c utilities.c xalloc.c word-file.c

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 05/14/2017 11:06 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > > On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > >> >> On 03/01/2017 05:30 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> So, https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32056 is an example

Hi. I'm trying to vectorize the following piece of code with Loop Vectorizer (from LLVM distribution Nov 2015), but no vectorization takes place: int *Test(int *res, int *c, int *d, int *p) { int i; for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) { //res[i] = (p[i] == 0) ? c[i] : d[i]; res[i] = (p[i] == 0) ? res[i] : res[i] + d[i];

Bingo! That works (when coming from C source) Now, I have a serious problem. I am not coming from C but I build the function with the builder. I am also forced to change the signature and load the pointers a,b,c afterwards: define void @bar([8 x i8]* nocapture readonly %arg_ptr) #0 { entrypoint: %0 = bitcast [8 x i8]* %arg_ptr to i32* %1 = load i32* %0, align 4 %2 = getelementptr [8 x

----- Original Message ----- > Bingo! That works (when coming from C source) > > Now, I have a serious problem. I am not coming from C but I build the > function with the builder. I am also forced to change the signature > and > load the pointers a,b,c afterwards: > > define void @bar([8 x i8]* nocapture readonly %arg_ptr) #0 { > entrypoint: > %0 = bitcast [8 x

Thanks for the alternatives! I am trying the 'extracting sub-function' approach. However, it seems I can't get the 'subfunction' to pass the verifier. This is my subfunction: define void @main_extern([8 x i8]* %arg_ptr) { entrypoint: %0 = getelementptr [8 x i8]* %arg_ptr, i32 0 %1 = bitcast [8 x i8]* %0 to i64* %2 = load i64* %1 %3 = getelementptr [8 x i8]*

Hi, > On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:27 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > The problem here is that the d[i] array is only conditionally accessed, and so we can't if-convert the loop body. The compiler does not know that d[i] is actually dereferenceable for all i from 0 to 15 (the array might be shorter and p[i] is 0 for i past the end

Hi, I'm having some trouble understanding if the live intervals calculated for one of my testcases are correct or not. I have the following instructions: 272L %vreg67:lo<def> = mv_any16 65535; R:%vreg67 288L %vreg64:hi<def> = mv_any16 16383; R:%vreg64 304L %vreg64:lo<def> = COPY %vreg67:lo; R:%vreg64,%vreg67 320L %vreg6<def> = COPY %vreg64<kill>;