search for: doubles

On Thursday 19 February 2009 19:00:14 Jon Harrop wrote: > I'm toying with benchmarks on my HLVM and am unable to get any performance > improvement from optimization passes... I just disassembled some of the IR before and after optimization. This example function squares a complex number: let zsqr(r, i) = (r*r - i*i, 2*r*i) My compiler is generating: define fastcc i32 @zsqr({

Are you able to send any IR for others to reproduce this issue? On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Peter Newman <peter at uformia.com> wrote: > Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the bug I'm hitting. I applied > the fix to my source and it didn't make a difference. > > Also further testing found me getting the same behavior with other SIMD > instructions.

I'm toying with benchmarks on my HLVM and am unable to get any performance improvement from optimization passes. Moreover, some of my programs generate a lot of redundant code (e.g. alloca a struct, store a struct into it and read only one field without using the rest of the struct) and this does not appear to be optimized away. I simply copied the use of PassManager from the Kaleidoscope

Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the bug I'm hitting. I applied the fix to my source and it didn't make a difference. Also further testing found me getting the same behavior with other SIMD instructions. The common factor is in each case, ECX is set to 0x7fffffff, and it's an operation using xmm ptr ecx+offset . Additionally, turning the optimization level passed to

The following function compiles with -O3 into the following IR. http://llvm.org/docs/Passes.html#simplifycfg-simplify-the-cfg says - Eliminates a basic block that only contains an unconditional branch. but the first and third blocks in the compiled function only contain an unconditional branch; I would have expected them to be eliminated. What am I missing? double f(double *a) { for (int i

I've attached the module->dump() that our code is producing. Unfortunately this is the smallest test case I have available. This is before any optimization passes are applied. There are two separate modules in existence at the time, and there are no guarantees about the order the surrounding code calls those functions, so there may be some interaction between them? There shouldn't

Maybe it would illustrative to give an IR example of the case I'm interested in. Consider define void @"julia_transform_bvn_derivs_hessian!"(double* %data, double* %data2, double *%data3, double *%out) { %element11 = getelementptr inbounds double, double* %data, i32 1 %load10 = load double, double* %data %load11 = load double, double* %element11 %element21 =

Dear Prof. Ripley et al., I have a data frame with some variable names that contain the underscore character ('_'). It seems that RODBC is not converting them to a suitable variable name for MySQL. > sqlSave(channel, zz, addPK = TRUE, verbose = TRUE) Query: CREATE TABLE zz (rownames varchar(255) PRIMARY KEY, NAME varchar(255), ID varchar(255), GROUP varchar(255), OAC_RT double,

Hello, I'm working on using the LLVM JIT for a little project of mine, amazing work first off! I have a question about optimization passes. I initially have this function I've created, in python it looks like this: OS_end = 50OS_start = 0OS_timestep = 1birth_rate = .3population = 30.0for time in range(OS_start, OS_end, OS_timestep): births = birth_rate * population deaths = 0.1

> > On Thursday 19 February 2009 19:00:14 Jon Harrop wrote: >> I'm toying with benchmarks on my HLVM and am unable to get any >> performance >> improvement from optimization passes... > > I just disassembled some of the IR before and after optimization. > This example > function squares a complex number: Something is definitely wrong with the way

Hello, I am trying to cross-compile libc++ from my x86_64 linux system to armv7hf. We have our own gcc compiler that we build with crosstools-ng (based on gcc 6.3.0) and I set my environment like this: CC=armv7a-plex-linux-gnueabihf-gcc CXX=armv7a-plex-linux-gnueabihf-g++ CFLAGS=-fPIC -DPIC -mfloat-abi=hard -march=armv7-a -Os -mfpu=vfpv3-d16 --sysroot=<path> CXXFLAGS=-fPIC -DPIC

Hi LLVMers, I would like to ask a question regarding aliasing. Suppose I have the following program: double f(double** p ) { double a,b,c; double * x = &a; double * y = &b; double * z = &c; *x = 1; *y = *x + 2; *z = *x + 3; return *x+*y+*z; } LLVM can tell that the three pointers do not alias each other so can perform the constant folding at compile time.

At first glance, it looks like long double functions (such as fabsl and friends) are missing from your sysroot's <math.h>. Does your target support long double at all? -Dimitry > On 6 Feb 2018, at 09:51, Tobias Hieta via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > I am trying to cross-compile libc++ from my x86_64 linux system to armv7hf. We have

Hello Dimitry and thanks for your answer. I am pretty sure it does indeed support long double. It's configured with vfpv3-d16 - but I noticed that c++config.h in gcc has _GLIBCXX__HAS_FABSL and friends are undefined. I think I need to look deeper at the configuration of our toolchain. long double support is required in libc++ then I gather? -- Tobias On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 11:47 AM,

You're right, it can indeed. Is there a reason -O3 doesn't do this? I had been expecting -O3 to perform full optimization. The first block still remains in any case. Is the first block needed for some purpose I'm not taking into account? On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Xiangyang Guo <eceguo at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > if you use opt -simplifycfg, the third BB can

Hi Roel, the code you list below is precisely what I expect to get (of course the stores must happen but the constant folding should happen as well). It all looks very strange. LLVM is behaving as if the __restrict__ keyword was not used at all. Even more strange is the fact that for this function: double f(double *__restrict__ x, double *__restrict__ y, double *__restrict__ z) { *x = 1.0;

Hello, I am trying to cross-compile libc++ from my x86_64 linux system to armv7hf. We have our own gcc compiler that we build with crosstools-ng (based on gcc 6.3.0) and I set my environment like this: CC=armv7a-plex-linux-gnueabihf-gcc CXX=armv7a-plex-linux-gnueabihf-g++ CFLAGS=-fPIC -DPIC -mfloat-abi=hard -march=armv7-a -Os -mfpu=vfpv3-d16 --sysroot=<path> CXXFLAGS=-fPIC -DPIC

Can you explain please why it works for this version of the function: double f(double *__restrict__ x, double *__restrict__ y, double *__restrict__ z); What is different here? There are stores here as well. Brent On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Roel Jordans <r.jordans at tue.nl> wrote: > Hi Brent, > > I think this is a problem in the easy-cse transform. In this transform

The scoreboard hazard detector that I've added for the PPC 440 is not detecting hazards as it should (which certainly could be my fault somehow, but...). For example, it will produce a schedule that looks like... SU(28): 0x127969b0: f64,ch = LFD 0x12793aa0, 0x1277b4f0, 0x127965b0<Mem:LD8[%scevgep100](tbaa=!"double")> [ORD=41] [ID=28] SU(46): 0x12796ab0: f64 = FADD 0x127969b0,

Hi Brent, Looking at your code I can see at least one reason why some of the store operations remain in the output since you are (through x, y, and z) writing in memory which exists outside of your function (p). Constant propagation also seems to work in the first few lines, *y = *x +1 (%3) is stored directly. The strange thing to me is that the same doesn't happen for *z = *x + 2. Here