search for: fsubs

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 221 matches for "fsubs".

Did you mean: subs
2012 Nov 25
1
Error : Error in if (antipodal(p1, p2))
Hey, I'm trying to build something like this http://flowingdata.com/2011/05/11/how-to-map-connections-with-great-circles/ but with my own data in csv files. The code runs well if I use the same csv files as the author, but with mine , this is what I get *Code* library(maps) library(geosphere) map("world") xlim <- c(-180.00, 180.00) ylim <- c(-90.00, 90.00)
2018 Aug 29
3
[FPEnv] FNEG instruction
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 at 07:51, Cameron McInally via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The current thinking is that FNEG(X) and FSUB(-0.0, X) are not the same operation when X is a NaN or 0. Do you mean denormals (when flushed) rather than 0 there? AFAIK it's OK for 0 itself. > So, the xforms in question should only be valid under Fast-Math conditions. We could
2013 Feb 09
1
R maps Help
I am fairly new to R and am plotting flight data on a map. Everything is working well except the size of the map is really too small to show the data effectively and I can't seem to figure out how to make the output map larger. Do I need to change the device characteristics or is it a map.??? call. Here is the code: library(maps) library(geosphere) airports <-
2015 Jun 22
2
[LLVMdev] bb-vectorizer transforms only part of the block
The loads, stores and float arithmetic in attached function should be completely vectorizable. The bb-vectorizer does a good job at first, but from instruction %96 on it messes up by adding unnecessary vectorshuffles. (The function was designed so that no shuffle would be needed in order to vectorize it). I tested this with llvm 3.6 with the following command:
2018 Aug 30
4
[FPEnv] FNEG instruction
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Cameron McInally <cameron.mcinally at nyu.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Stephen Canon <scanon at apple.com> wrote: > >> On Aug 29, 2018, at 1:22 PM, Cameron McInally via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> >> FSUB(-0.0, NaN) = NaN >> FSUB(-0.0, -NaN) = NaN >>
2009 Jun 15
5
[LLVMdev] Upcoming API change: FAdd, FSub, FMul
Hello, The LLVM IR opcodes Add, Sub, and Mul have been each split into two. Add, Sub, and Mul now only handle integer types, and three new opcodes, FAdd, FSub, and FMul now handle floating-point types. The main LLVM APIs are currently preserving backwards compatibility, transparently mapping integer opcodes to corresponding floating-point opcodes when the operands have floating-point types.
2014 Aug 08
3
[LLVMdev] Signed NaNs in APFloat arithmetic
On 7 August 2014 20:52, Keno Fischer <kfischer at college.harvard.edu> wrote: > One more update: Since the code generated by the bitcast wasn't ideal > and we were afraid to loose vectorization, etc., we ended up going > with fsub -0.0, x, which for some reason unlike fsub 0.0, x, seems to > be have appropriately at all optimization levels. That's because "fsub 0.0,
2017 Jun 10
3
Fusing contract fadd/fsub with normal fmul
Hi, On LLVM 5.0 (current trunk), fadd/fsub and fmul that are both marked with `contract` or `fast` can be merged to a fma instruction by the backend. I'm wondering about the exact semantic of this new flag as well as `fast` and in particular, would it be valid to do this when only the `fadd`/`fsub` (and not the `fmul`) is marked with `contract` or at least `fast`. The reasoning is that doing
2009 Jun 16
3
[LLVMdev] Upcoming API change: FAdd, FSub, FMul
On Jun 16, 2009, at 7:34 AM, Aaron Gray wrote: >> The LLVM IR opcodes Add, Sub, and Mul have been each split into >> two. Add, Sub, and Mul now only handle integer types, and three >> new opcodes, FAdd, FSub, and FMul now handle floating-point types. > > Dan, > > Wondering the reason why there is no FDiv ? FDiv already exists; div was split quite a while ago. Dan
2013 Mar 16
0
[LLVMdev] Expand action on FSUB with vector types causes both "Vector Unroll" and "Add+Negate"
In my target, I have setOperationAction(ISD::FSUB, MVT::v4f32, Expand); This produces the desired effect in LegalizeDAG, replacing the FSUB with FADD + FNEG. However, when the vector legalizer runs, it thinks the Expand legalize action means to unroll the vector. This isn't necessary and not what I wanted. Is there a way to get one and not the other? I don't want the unroll aspect of
2018 Sep 11
2
[FPEnv] FNEG instruction
+1 for an explicit FNEG instruction, since as previously discussed, it has stricter requirements for what value may be returned by the operation. And strengthening the requirement on FSUB is not feasible when the values are variables rather than literals. That is: FSUB(-0.0, NaN) = either NaN *or* -NaN FSUB(-0.0, -NaN) = either NaN *or* -NaN FNEG(NaN) = -NaN FNEG(-NaN) = NaN On Tue, Sep 11,
2019 Nov 10
2
Reassociation is blocking a vectorization
Hi Devs, I am looking at the bug https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43953 and found that following piece of ir %arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds float, float* %Vec0, i64 %idxprom %0 = load float, float* %arrayidx, align 4, !tbaa !2 %arrayidx2 = getelementptr inbounds float, float* %Vec1, i64 %idxprom %1 = load float, float* %arrayidx2, align 4, !tbaa !2 %sub = fsub fast float %0, %1
2009 Jun 16
0
[LLVMdev] Upcoming API change: FAdd, FSub, FMul
> The LLVM IR opcodes Add, Sub, and Mul have been each split into > two. Add, Sub, and Mul now only handle integer types, and three > new opcodes, FAdd, FSub, and FMul now handle floating-point types. Dan, Wondering the reason why there is no FDiv ? Thanks, Aaron
2013 Mar 25
1
[LLVMdev] Types in TableGen instruction selection patterns
...able to write this: > > def insn : Inst<(outs i32:$dst), (ins i32:$src1, i32:$src2), > "some assembler", > [(set $dst, (Op $src1, $src2))]>; >From the PPC changes, I see that this is already possible under a slightly different form: def FSUBS : AForm_2<59, 20, (outs F4RC:$FRT), (ins F4RC:$FRA, F4RC:$FRB), "fsubs $FRT, $FRA, $FRB", FPGeneral, - [(set F4RC:$FRT, (fsub F4RC:$FRA, F4RC:$FRB))]>; + [(set f32:$FRT, (fsub f32:$FRA, f32:$FRB)...
2019 Feb 04
4
[RFC] Vector Predication
On 2/2/19 1:39 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > > > On Friday, February 1, 2019, Simon Moll <moll at cs.uni-saarland.de > <mailto:moll at cs.uni-saarland.de>> wrote: > > We could untie the mask length from the data length: > >   %result = call <scalable 4 x float> > @llvm.evl.fsub.v4f32(<scalable 4 x float> %x, <scalable 4
2014 Sep 22
2
[LLVMdev] Bug 16257 - fmul of undef ConstantExpr not folded to undef
Hi Duncan, On 17.09.2014 21:10, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Oleg, > > On 17/09/14 18:45, Oleg Ranevskyy wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Thank you for all your helpful comments. >> >> To sum up, below is the list of correct folding examples for fadd: >> (1) fadd %x, -0.0 -> %x >> (2) fadd undef, undef -> undef
2009 Jun 16
0
[LLVMdev] Upcoming API change: FAdd, FSub, FMul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Gohman" <gohman at apple.com> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 7:49 AM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Upcoming API change: FAdd, FSub, FMul > > On Jun 16, 2009, at 7:34 AM, Aaron Gray wrote: > >>> The LLVM IR opcodes Add, Sub, and Mul have been each split
2018 Aug 29
2
[FPEnv] FNEG instruction
> On Aug 29, 2018, at 1:22 PM, Cameron McInally via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > FSUB(-0.0, NaN) = NaN > FSUB(-0.0, -NaN) = NaN Some specific architecture may define this, or APFloat might, but IEEE 754 does not interpret the sign of NaN except in four operations (copy, abs, negate, copysign), so it doesn’t say anything about these. – Steve --------------
2018 Aug 21
3
[FPEnv] FNEG instruction
Hey llvm-dev, Continuing a discussion from D50913... A group working on the FP rounding mode and trap-safety project have run into a situation where it would make sense to add a new FNEG instruction and decouple the existing FNEG<->FSUB transformations. The IEEE-754 Standard (Section 5.5.1) makes it clear that neg(x) and sub(-0.0,x) are two different operations. The former is a bitwise
2010 Sep 29
0
[LLVMdev] spilling & xmm register usage
On Sep 29, 2010, at 8:35 AMPDT, Ralf Karrenberg wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I have stumbled upon a test case (the attached module is a slightly > reduced version) that shows extremely reduced performance on linux > compared to windows when executed using LLVM's JIT. > > We narrowed the problem down to the actual code being generated, the > source IR on both systems