search for: frem

...rn 0; } $ g++ -o builtin_fmodf_bugpoint_gcc builtin_fmodf_bugpoint.cpp $ ./builtin_fmodf_bugpoint_gcc 1.000000 fmodf 0.100000 = 0.100000 $ clang++ -o builtin_fmodf_bugpoint_clang builtin_fmodf_bugpoint.cpp 1.000000 fmodf 0.100000 = 0.000000 Clang will compile __builtin_fmod() into LLVM's "frem" [1]. Since both operands are constant, it is constant folded by IRBuilder at the time when "frem" was built. The exeuction finally goes to llvm::ConstantFoldBinaryInstruction() which uses APFloat::mod() to compute the result. As you can see from above, it gives us 0.000000 (hex: 0x0...

%y = fadd float %x, undef Can we simplify this? Currently in IR, we do nothing for fadd/fsub/fmul. For fdiv/frem, we propagate undef. The code comment for fdiv/frem says: "the undef could be a snan" If that's correct, then shouldn't it be the same for fadd/fsub/fmul? But this can't be correct because we support targets that don't raise exceptions...and even targets that raise except...

...oopVectorizationCostModel::isScalarWithPredication(Instruction *I, unsigned VF) { if (!Legal->blockNeedsPredication(I->getParent())) return false; switch(I->getOpcode()) { default: break; case Instruction::UDiv: <- Floating point operations not considered i.e FDiv & FRem case Instruction::SDiv: case Instruction::SRem: case Instruction::URem: return mayDivideByZero(*I); } I don't have any background of this function, but I feel this should consider FDiv & FRem instructions as well. If there is no objection to it, will do a patch. Thanks, Ashutos...

...; Intrinsics get added on demand. Generally there has to be a good reason > to add them. llvm.sin was implemented (for example) to allow generation > of code that uses vector sin operations. What is the criteria for adding an intrinsic or a built-in operation? For example, could the 'frem' instruction be an intrinsic? Could you remove it from LLVM entirely and make it an external function? What distinguishes 'frem' from 'sin', 'pow', 'atan2', etc.? Regards, Jon

Hi Guys, I found that FRem generates instruction *call 0* by JIT on windows 7, msvc 2010 sp1 x86, and llvm.exp.f32 also has this issue. My LLVM version is official 3.0. Anyone give me some tips ? Thanks a lot ! SALVIA Project Manager Ye WU http://code.google.com/p/softart -- Ye Wu CELL: +86 159 9957 0103 --------------...

...rem instead of srem asserts that the arguments are unsigned. urem/srem Instruction: Move remainder/modulo discussion from srem to urem since many readers will read the document from top to bottom. In any case, both instructions should state "result has the same sign as the dividend". frem Instruction: There are four ways to define frem based on the rounding mode. The 8087 provides two of these: fprem and fprem1. Assuming the instruction uses the round-to-zero version of frem, add "calculated as <var1>-<var2>*floor(<var1>/<var2>)" Bitwise Binary...

...%x is a NaN then the result will be NaN for any value of the undef, right? So if I understand the undef rules correctly (never a certainty) then we can’t safely replace the expression with undef. We could, I think, replace it with “%y = %x” though. I think the same is true for fadd, fsub, fmul, and frem. -Andy From: Sanjay Patel [mailto:spatel at rotateright.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 6:29 PM To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Cc: Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt>; Stephen Canon <scanon at apple.com>; David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com>; John R...

...result will be NaN for > any value of the undef, right? So if I understand the undef rules correctly > (never a certainty) then we can’t safely replace the expression with undef. > We could, I think, replace it with “%y = %x” though. I think the same is > true for fadd, fsub, fmul, and frem. > > > > -Andy > > > > > %y = fadd float %x, undef > > > > Can we simplify this? > > Currently in IR, we do nothing for fadd/fsub/fmul. For fdiv/frem, we > propagate undef. The code comment for fdiv/frem says: > "the undef could be a snan&quot...

...%x is a NaN then the result will be NaN for any value of the undef, right? So if I understand the undef rules correctly (never a certainty) then we can’t safely replace the expression with undef. We could, I think, replace it with “%y = %x” though. I think the same is true for fadd, fsub, fmul, and frem. -Andy %y = fadd float %x, undef Can we simplify this? Currently in IR, we do nothing for fadd/fsub/fmul. For fdiv/frem, we propagate undef. The code comment for fdiv/frem says: "the undef could be a snan" If that's correct, then shouldn't it be the same for fadd/fsub/fmul?...

...> Ciao, > > Duncan. > Great work Duncan! I recompiled llvm and restested the failing softenfloat tests on my machine: 2007-11-19-VectorSplitting.ll OK! vector-constantexpr.ll OK! vector-constantexpr.ll OK! llvm-as < print-arith-fp.l l | llc SoftenFloatResult #0: 0x61aad8: f64 = frem 0x619fb0, 0x619ea0 llc: /usr/src/openembedded/overo/tmp/work/armv7a-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/llvm2.6-2.6-r1/llvm-2.6/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/LegalizeFloatTypes.cpp:54: void llvm::DAGTypeLegalizer::SoftenFloatResult(llvm::SDNode*, unsigned int): Assertion `0 && "Do not know how to sof...

...demand. Generally there has to be a good reason > > to add them. llvm.sin was implemented (for example) to allow generation > > of code that uses vector sin operations. > > What is the criteria for adding an intrinsic or a built-in operation? > For example, could the 'frem' instruction be an intrinsic? Could you > remove it from LLVM entirely and make it an external function? What > distinguishes 'frem' from 'sin', 'pow', 'atan2', etc.? The main difference from my perspective between intrinsics and instructions is that i...

...result will be NaN for > any value of the undef, right? So if I understand the undef rules correctly > (never a certainty) then we can’t safely replace the expression with undef. > We could, I think, replace it with “%y = %x” though. I think the same is > true for fadd, fsub, fmul, and frem. > > > > -Andy > > > > > > %y = fadd float %x, undef > > > > Can we simplify this? > > Currently in IR, we do nothing for fadd/fsub/fmul. For fdiv/frem, we > propagate undef. The code comment for fdiv/frem says: > "the undef could be a snan...

...mp2.loc = alloca int ; <int*> [#uses=2] %castLongToGV14 = cast long %pointerArithmetic13 to double* ; <double*> [#uses=1] store double 2.000000e+00, double* %castLongToGV14 cast int %x to double ; <double>:31 [#uses=1] frem double %31, 1.000000e+02 ; <double>:32 [#uses=2] %castPointerToLong15 = cast [10 x double]* %DataStore to long ; <long> [#uses=1] %pointerArithmetic16 = add long %castPointerToLong15, 24 ; <long> [#uses=1] %castLongToGV17...

...%x is a NaN then the result will be NaN for any value of the undef, right? So if I understand the undef rules correctly (never a certainty) then we can’t safely replace the expression with undef. We could, I think, replace it with “%y = %x” though. I think the same is true for fadd, fsub, fmul, and frem. -Andy %y = fadd float %x, undef Can we simplify this? Currently in IR, we do nothing for fadd/fsub/fmul. For fdiv/frem, we propagate undef. The code comment for fdiv/frem says: "the undef could be a snan" If that's correct, then shouldn't it be the same for fadd/fsub/fmul?...

...result will be NaN for > any value of the undef, right? So if I understand the undef rules correctly > (never a certainty) then we can’t safely replace the expression with undef. > We could, I think, replace it with “%y = %x” though. I think the same is > true for fadd, fsub, fmul, and frem. > > > > -Andy > > > > > > %y = fadd float %x, undef > > > > Can we simplify this? > > Currently in IR, we do nothing for fadd/fsub/fmul. For fdiv/frem, we > propagate undef. The code comment for fdiv/frem says: > "the undef could be a snan...

...o have the same address as the aliasee expression. ``unnamed_addr`` ones are only guaranteed to point to the same content. @@ -1779,7 +1779,7 @@ LLVM IR floating-point binary ops (:ref:`fadd <i_fadd>`, :ref:`fsub <i_fsub>`, :ref:`fmul <i_fmul>`, :ref:`fdiv <i_fdiv>`, -:ref:`frem <i_frem>`) have the following flags that can set to enable +:ref:`frem <i_frem>`) have the following flags that can be set to enable otherwise unsafe floating point operations ``nnan`` Index: docs/CodeGenerator.rst =================================================================== ---...

I came across this comment in SelectionDAG.cpp: case ISD::FADD: case ISD::FSUB: case ISD::FMUL: case ISD::FDIV: case ISD::FREM: // If both operands are undef, the result is undef. If 1 operand is undef, // the result is NaN. This should match the behavior of the IR optimizer. That isn't intuitive to me. I would have expected a binary FP operation with one undef operand to fold to undef. Does anyone know the re...

Howdy All, I''ve a bit of a strange problem here. I have a filesystem with one snapshot that simply refuses to be destroyed. The snapshots just prior to it and just after it were destroyed without problem. While running the zfs destroy command on this particular snapshot, the server becomes more-or-less hung. It''s pingable but will not open a new shell (local or via ssh) however

...%x is a NaN then the result will be NaN for any value of the undef, right? So if I understand the undef rules correctly (never a certainty) then we can’t safely replace the expression with undef. We could, I think, replace it with “%y = %x” though. I think the same is true for fadd, fsub, fmul, and frem. -Andy %y = fadd float %x, undef Can we simplify this? Currently in IR, we do nothing for fadd/fsub/fmul. For fdiv/frem, we propagate undef. The code comment for fdiv/frem says: "the undef could be a snan" If that's correct, then shouldn't it be the same for fadd/fsub/fmul?...

...right? So if I understand the undef rules correctly > (never a certainty) then we can’t safely replace the > expression with undef. We could, I think, replace it with > “%y = %x” though. I think the same is true for fadd, fsub, > fmul, and frem. > > -Andy > > %y = fadd float %x, undef > > Can we simplify this? > > Currently in IR, we do nothing for fadd/fsub/fmul. For > fdiv/frem, we propagate undef. The code comment for > fdiv/frem says:...