search for: leals

Hi Duncan, David, Sean. Thanks for your reply. > It'd be interesting if you could find a design that also treated these > the same: > > (B ^ A) | ((A ^ B) ^ C) -> (A ^ B) | C > (B ^ A) | ((B ^ C) ^ A) -> (A ^ B) | C > (B ^ A) | ((C ^ A) ^ B) -> (A ^ B) | C > > I.e., `^` is also associative. Agree with Duncan on including associative operation too.

Hello, I have an issue with the llvm optimizations. I need to create object codes. the -ON PURPOSE poor && useless- code : --------------------------------------------------- #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> int ci(int a){ return 23; } int flop(int a, char ** c){ a += 71; int b = 0; if (a == 56){ b = 69; b += ci(a); } puts("ok"); return a +

Thanks Sean for the reference. I will go through it and see if i can implement it for generic boolean expression minimization. Regards, Suyog On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > Re-adding the mailing list (remember to hit "reply all") > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:36 AM, suyog sarda <sardask01 at gmail.com> wrote:

I don't understand your point. Which version is better does NOT depend on what inputs are passed to the function. The compiled code for (as per llvm) f1 will always take less time to execute than f2. for x > 0 => T(f1) < T(f2) for x <= 0 => T(f1) = T(f2) where T() is the time to execute the given function. So always T(f1) <= T(f2). I would call this a missed

Hi everyone, I''m new to rails and also to rspec, but I tried to do my homework. To answer my questions, I searched this list''s archives, the Rails API, and Google, to no avail. Therefor, I''d be grateful if someone could point me in the right directions: 1) There doesn''t seem to be a counterpart to assert_recognizes in rspec. route_for() won''t work

Even if you can't implement such an algorithm sanely, ISTM that auto-generating this code from a table (or whatever), and choosing canonical results (to avoid a fixpoint issue), rather than what seems to be hand-additions of every possible set of minimizations on three variables, is still a better solution, no? At least then you wouldn't have human errors, and a growing file that makes

Hello all... I''m seeing this behaviour in an old build (89), and i just want to hear from you if there is some known bug about it. I''m aware of the "picket fencing" problem, and that ZFS is not choosing right if write to slog is better or not (thinking if we have a better throughput from disks). But i did not find anything about 100% slog activity (~115MB/s) blocks

> You're misreading the asm... nothing is touching memory. (BTW, "leal > -1(%eax), %eax" isn't a memory operation; it's just subtracting one > from %eax.) You might want to try reading the LLVM IR (which you can > generate with llvm-gcc -S -emit-llvm); it tends to be easier to read. I tried that, but I'm still learning LLVM. Seeing indvar, phi nodes, tail

When I increased COLS to the point where the loop could no longer be unrolled, the selection dag code generator generated effectively the same code as the default X86 code generator. Lots of redundant imul/movl/addl sequences. It can't clean it up either. Only unrolling all nested loops permits it to be optimized away, regardless of code generator. Jeff Cohen wrote: > I noticed

Thanks Volker, I've Changed the values as you suggested, i noticed that the default value for max xmit is much less 16384! Still I feel like the performance is very slow indeed. This because on server, a can make copys arround 8gb/s! and in samba is all so slow and it freezes as i sad many times... Can you have a second look to the log, to see if you see anything strange? I'm putting

Firts of all Greetings From Cuba "Saludos" to all of the member of this list. My name it's Orestes Leal, at your service. Well, The problem it's the following: I have one ATI RADEON 200 Series Integrated into the mainboard (ATI Technologies Inc RC410 [Radeon Xpress 200]), the chip has 64 megs of Video and 64 shared from memory to a total amount of 128 megs, the Xorg says me

Hi, All, Duncan, Rafael, David, Nick. This is regarding pattern matching in InstructionCombine pass. We use 'match' functions many times, but it doesn't do the pattern matching effectively. e.x. Lets take pattern : (A ^ B) | ((B ^ C) ^ A) -> (A ^ B) | C (B ^ A) | ((B ^ C) ^ A) -> (A ^ B) | C Both the patterns above are same, since ^ is commutative in Op0. But,

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

I noticed that fourinarow is one of the programs in which LLVM is much slower than GCC, so I decided to take a look and see why that is so. The program has many loops that look like this: #define ROWS 6 #define COLS 7 void init_board(char b[COLS][ROWS+1]) { int i,j; for (i=0;i<COLS;i++) for (j=0;j<ROWS;j++) b[i][j]='.';

Hello all, First off, i''m talking about a SXDE build 89. Sorry if that was discussed here before, but i did not find anything related on the archives, and i think is a "weird" issue... If i try to remove a specific file, i got: # rm file1 rm: file1: No such file or directory # rm -rf dir2 rm: Unable to remove directory dir2: Directory not empty Take a look: ------- cut

Hello all.. I did some tests to understand the behaviour of ZFS and slog (SSD), and for understand the workload i did implement a simple software to visualize the data blocks (read/write). I''m posting here the link in the case somebody wants to try it. http://www.eall.com.br/blog/?p=906 Thanks a lot for your time. Leal [http://www.eall.com.br/blog] -- This message posted from

Hello all, Every night i receive the messages: rsync: connection unexpectedly closed (14801530 bytes received so far) [generator] rsync error: error in rsync protocol data stream (code 12) at io.c(453) [generator=2.6.9] but the synchronization process seems to be right... so the question: What can be the cause of that messages? Thanks a lot!! -- pOSix rules

<br />Hello, <br />Ecx is a problem because you have to xor it. Which is avoided in the gcc compilation. Fomit-pointer-frame helps.<br /><br />Now llvm is one instruction from gcc. If ecx was not used, it would be as fast.<br />-- <br />Sent from Yandex.Mail for mobile<br /><br />20:03, 13 July 2015, Matthias Braun <mbraun@apple.com>:<br

Hello. I'm from Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul - Brazil and I'm trying to adapt speex_echo.h (speex-1.2beta3-win32) to our video-conference software code. We are working on amplitude values, but I realised that in order to AEC works, one has to convert amplitude to frequency and filter the echo frequencies. So, my question is: Do I have to manually convert amplitude samples to

On Oct 8, 2007, at 4:26 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Evan Cheng wrote: >>> [x86_64-mod-dbg]: /tmp/ccxekXCc.s: Assembler messages: >>> [x86_64-mod-dbg]: /tmp/ccxekXCc.s:36: Error: `(%esi,%edi)' is not a >>> valid 64 >>> bit base/index expression >> >> Looks like llvm is generating invalid x86-64 assembly. Can you add