search for: jle

...ty. I think it warrants a bug report. If I do the same experiment with gcc I get identical code for the two functions: ============================================== _f1:        pushl   %ebp        xorl    %eax, %eax        movl %esp, %ebp        movl    8(%ebp), %edx        testl   %edx, %edx   jle     L5        popl    %ebp        ret        .p2align 4,,7L5:     movl    %edx, %ecx        imull   %edx, %ecx        popl    %ebp     leal    3(%ecx,%ecx,4), %eax        imull   %edx, %eax leal    1(%eax,%ecx,2), %eax        ret        .p2align 4,,15 _f2:         pushl   %ebp        xorl    %eax,...

...; srcLine 0 bb74: 2700 %reg1176<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1645<kill> ; srcLine 0 [deleted copy] 2708 %reg1178<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1647<kill> ; srcLine 0 *** u before d 2712 TEST64rr %reg1173, %reg1173, %EFLAGS<imp-def> ; srcLine 30 2716 JLE mbb<file test.f90, bb90,0x3c37ed0>, %EFLAGS<imp-use,kill> ; srcLine 0 bb108: [...] 4352 %reg1253<def> = MAXSSrr %reg1253, %reg1588<kill> ; srcLine 60 4356 %reg1645<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1253<kill> ; srcLine 0 4360 %reg1177<def> = F...

Hi All, I have 30 years as a self employed software engineer and have been experimenting with rails for several years but !! I would have made considerably more progress and been able to give back to the community if only there was a demo application that was released with each new rails release. I am sure that it would take no more than 15 minutes of someone within the core team to produce

On Jan 30, 2009, at 1:52 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Friday 30 January 2009 15:10, David Greene wrote: > >> This still looks correct. The coalescer then says: >> >> 4360 %reg1177<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1176<kill> ; srcLine 0 >> Inspecting %reg1176,0 = [2702,4362:0) 0 at 2702-(4362) and >> %reg1177,0 = >>

...call _calloc lea edx, [r15-1] movsxd r8, edx mov ecx, r15d add ecx, 0FFFFFFFEh js loc_100000DFA test r15d, r15d mov r11d, [rax+r8*4] jle loc_100000EAE mov ecx, r15d add ecx, 0FFFFFFFEh mov [rsp+48h+var_34], ecx movsxd rcx, ecx lea rcx, [rax+rcx*4] mov [rsp+48h+var_40], rcx lea rcx, [rax+4]...

...>> movsxd r8, edx >> mov ecx, r15d >> add ecx, 0FFFFFFFEh >> js loc_100000DFA >> test r15d, r15d >> mov r11d, [rax+r8*4] >> jle loc_100000EAE >> mov ecx, r15d >> add ecx, 0FFFFFFFEh >> mov [rsp+48h+var_34], ecx >> movsxd rcx, ecx >> lea rcx, [rax+rcx*4] >> mov [rsp+48h+...

Is it possible to install and run Netscape whitout having access to a native windows. -- Best regard, Svend Bjerrum Jensen http://www.sbj.esenet.dk

Hi! Does Microsoft Encarta (I have the '99 Version) run with wine? What about Multimedia CDROMs in general? Ulli

Hi, I'm looking over the Wine documentation, and it says that the particular version that looks like it will work with my version of RedHat 7.1 will only work if the glibcc is 2.2 or above. How do I tell? I"m a newbie and not sure exactly what the glibcc is. TIA

...bly, seemingly applying tail call optimization even though the ret instruction does not follow the tail call instruction: <snip> _ack.15: ## @ack.15 Leh_func_begin1: ## BB#0: ## %entry pushq %rbx Ltmp1: Ltmp2: testq %rdi, %rdi jle LBB1_3 ## BB#1: ## %if.no movq %rdi, %rbx testq %rsi, %rsi jle LBB1_4 ## BB#2: ## %if.no2 decq %rsi movq %rbx, %rdi callq _ack.15 movq %rbx, %rdi decq %rdi movq %rax, %rsi popq %rbx jmp _ack.15 ## TAILCALL LBB1...

...t;>> mov ecx, r15d >>>> add ecx, 0FFFFFFFEh >>>> js loc_100000DFA >>>> test r15d, r15d >>>> mov r11d, [rax+r8*4] >>>> jle loc_100000EAE >>>> mov ecx, r15d >>>> add ecx, 0FFFFFFFEh >>>> mov [rsp+48h+var_34], ecx >>>> movsxd rcx, ecx >>>> lea rcx, [rax+rcx*4] &g...

...looks like this: .text .globl foo .align 16, 0x90 .type foo, at function foo: # @foo .cfi_startproc # BB#0: # %entry xorl %eax, %eax testl %edx, %edx jle .LBB0_2 .align 16, 0x90 .LBB0_1: # %for.body addl (%rdi), %eax addl (%rsi), %eax decl %edx jne .LBB0_1 .LBB0_2: # %for.end ret .Ltmp0: .size foo, .Ltmp0-f...

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 5:59 AM, Brent Walker <brenthwalker at gmail.com> wrote: > The following seemingly identical functions, get compiled to quite > different machine code.  The first is correctly optimized (the > computation of var y is nicely moved into the else branch of the "if" > statement), which the second one is not (the full computation of var y > is

...ates: $ llc -O3 -mcpu=skylake --------------------- .LBB0_2: # =>This Inner Loop Header: Depth=1 vbroadcastss (%rsi,%rdx,4), %ymm0 vmulps (%rdi,%rcx), %ymm0, %ymm0 vaddps (%rax,%rcx), %ymm0, %ymm0 vmovups %ymm0, (%rax,%rcx) incq %rdx addq $32, %rcx cmpq $15, %rdx jle .LBB0_2 ----------------------- $ llc --version LLVM (http://llvm.org/): LLVM version 8.0.0 Optimized build. Default target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Host CPU: skylake (llvm commit 198009ae8db11d7c0b0517f17358870dc486fcfb from Aug 31) Using opt -O3 followed by llc leads to the same vmulps...

On Jan 29, 2009, at 5:29 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Thursday 29 January 2009 18:04, Eli Friedman wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: >>> After phi elimination we have: >>> >>> bb134: >>> %reg1645 = 1.0 >>> >>> bb74: >>> %reg1176 = MOVAPS %reg1645 >>> %reg1177 =

On Thursday 29 January 2009 18:04, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > > After phi elimination we have: > > > > bb134: > > %reg1645 = 1.0 > > > > bb74: > > %reg1176 = MOVAPS %reg1645 > > %reg1177 = MOVAPS %reg1646 > > [...] > > > > bb108: > > %reg1645 =

....globl foo > .align 16, 0x90 > .type foo, at function > foo: # @foo > .cfi_startproc > # BB#0: # %entry > xorl %eax, %eax > testl %edx, %edx > jle .LBB0_2 > .align 16, 0x90 > .LBB0_1: # %for.body > addl (%rdi), %eax > addl (%rsi), %eax > decl %edx > jne .LBB0_1 > .LBB0_2: # %for.end > ret >...

...reg1176<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1645<kill> ; srcLine 0 > [deleted copy] > 2708 %reg1178<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1647<kill> ; srcLine > 0 *** u > before d > 2712 TEST64rr %reg1173, %reg1173, %EFLAGS<imp-def> ; srcLine 30 > 2716 JLE mbb<file test.f90, bb90,0x3c37ed0>, %EFLAGS<imp- > use,kill> ; > srcLine > 0 > > bb108: > [...] > 4352 %reg1253<def> = MAXSSrr %reg1253, %reg1588<kill> ; > srcLine 60 > 4356 %reg1645<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1253<kill>...

On Monday 04 January 2010 05:16:40 Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > LLVM's TCO already handles mutual recursion. > > Only for fastcc functions Yes. > compiled with -tailcallopt, right? If you use the compiler, yes. > http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html#tailcallopt > > I believe

...= FsMOVAPSrr %reg1645<kill> ; srcLine 0 2704 %reg1177<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1646<kill> ; srcLine 0 *** u before d 2708 %reg1178<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1647<kill> ; srcLine 0 *** u before d 2712 TEST64rr %reg1173, %reg1173, %EFLAGS<imp-def> ; srcLine 30 2716 JLE mbb<file test.f90, bb90,0x3c37ed0>, %EFLAGS<imp-use,kill> ; srcLine 0 bb108: [...] 4352 %reg1253<def> = MAXSSrr %reg1253, %reg1588<kill> ; srcLine 60 4356 %reg1645<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1253<kill> ; srcLine 0 4360 %reg1646<def> = FsMOVAPSrr %reg1176<k...