Displaying 20 results from an estimated 76 matches for "nnans".
Did you mean:
nans
2006 Aug 28
1
Extracting column name in apply/lapply
Hi,
any good trick to get the column names for title() aside from running lapply on the column indexes?
Thanks
Nick.
apply(X[,numCols],2,function(x){
nunqs <- length(unique(x))
nnans <- sum(is.na(x))
info <- paste("uniques:",nunqs,"(",nunqs/n,")","NAs:",nnans,"(",nnans/n,")")
hist(x,xlab=info)
# --> title("???")
})
---------------------------------
[[alternative HTML version deleted]...
2017 Sep 30
3
Trouble when suppressing a portion of fast-math-transformations
Hi Hal,
>> 4. To fix this, I think that additional fast-math-flags are likely
>> needed in the IR. Instead of the following set:
>>
>> 'nnan' + 'ninf' + 'nsz' + 'arcp' + 'contract'
>>
>> something like this:
>>
>> 'reassoc' + 'libm' + 'nnan' + 'ninf' + 'nsz' +
2015 Feb 05
3
[LLVMdev] Proposal for Poison Semantics
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:24 AM, John Regehr <regehr at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> I am actively working towards removing poison altogether. I think a more
>> accurate model of LLVM's wrapping
>> flags is not poison but instead something akin to the fast-math flags on
>> floating point instructions.
>>
>
> Looking forward to seeing it. One of my students has
2018 Feb 28
5
how to simplify FP ops with an undef operand?
For the first part of Sanjay’s question, I think the answer is, “Yes, we can fold all of these to NaN in the general case.” For the second part, which the nnan FMF is present, I’m not sure. The particulars of the semantics of nnan are unclear to me.
But let me explore what Eli is saying. It sounds reasonable, but I have a question about it.
Suppose we have the nnan FMF set, and we encounter
2018 Mar 01
0
how to simplify FP ops with an undef operand?
We can do "add %x, undef" => "undef" because for any value of %x, we can
always find a value that when added to %x produces any value in the domain
of integers.
This is not the case with floats since with some inputs, e.g., NaNs, we are
not able to produce some values in the domain (e.g., there's no value of %x
that makes "fadd NaN, %x" return 42.0).
In
2018 Feb 28
0
how to simplify FP ops with an undef operand?
I'm pretty sure that isn't what nnan is supposed to mean. If the result
of nnan math were undefined in the sense of "undef", programs using nnan
could have undefined behavior if the result is used in certain ways
which would not be undefined for any actual float value (e.g. converting
the result to a string), which seems like a surprising result. And I
don't think we
2018 Aug 20
3
Condition code in DAGCombiner::visitFADDForFMACombine?
I'm curious why the condition to fuse is this:
// Floating-point multiply-add with intermediate rounding.
bool HasFMAD = (LegalOperations && TLI.isOperationLegal(ISD::FMAD, VT));
static bool isContractable(SDNode *N) {
SDNodeFlags F = N->getFlags();
return F.hasAllowContract() || F.hasAllowReassociation();
}
bool CanFuse = Options.UnsafeFPMath || isContractable(N);
bool
2017 Sep 29
0
Trouble when suppressing a portion of fast-math-transformations
Hi, Warren,
Thanks for writing all of this up. In short, regarding your suggested
solution:
> 4. To fix this, I think that additional fast-math-flags are likely
> needed in
>
> the IR. Instead of the following set:
>
> 'nnan' + 'ninf' + 'nsz' + 'arcp' + 'contract'
>
> something like this:
>
> 'reassoc' +
2017 Oct 03
2
Trouble when suppressing a portion of fast-math-transformations
On 10/01/2017 06:05 PM, Sanjay Patel wrote:
> Are we confident that we just need those 7 bits to represent all of
> the relaxed FP states that we need/want to support?
>
> I'm asking because FMF in IR is currently mapped onto the
> SubclassOptionalData of Value...and we have exactly 7 bits there. :)
>
> If we're redoing the definitions, I'm wondering if we can
2018 Feb 28
3
how to simplify FP ops with an undef operand?
Ah, thanks for explaining. So given that any of these ops will return NaN
with a NaN operand, let's choose the undef operand value to be NaN. That
means we can fold all of these to a NaN constant in the general case.
But if we have 'nnan' FMF, then we can fold harder to undef?
nnan - Allow optimizations to assume the arguments and result are not NaN.
Such optimizations are required to
2018 Mar 01
2
how to simplify FP ops with an undef operand?
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:08 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote:
> We can do "add %x, undef" => "undef" because for any value of %x, we can
> always find a value that when added to %x produces any value in the domain
> of integers.
>
> This is not the case with floats since with some inputs, e.g., NaNs, we
> are not able to produce some
2018 Aug 21
2
Condition code in DAGCombiner::visitFADDForFMACombine?
> On Aug 21, 2018, at 17:08, Ryan Taylor via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> So I have a test case where:
>
> %20 = fmul nnan arcp float %15, %19
> %21 = fadd reassoc nnan arcp contract float %20, -1.000000e+00
>
> is being contracted in DAG to fmad. Is this correct since the fmul has no reassoc or contract fast math flag?
>
> Thanks.
fmad
2012 Nov 15
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] fast-math patches!
On Nov 15, 2012, at 10:38 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> The patch looks good in general. But I'm a bit concerned about the textural representation about these flags. 'N', 'I', 'S', 'R', 'A' seem cryptic to me. Does it make sense to expand them a bit 'nnan', 'inf', etc.? They definitely
2016 Nov 16
3
RFC: Consider changing the semantics of 'fast' flag implying all fast-math-flags
Hi,
Thanks for the quick feedback. I see your points, but I have a few questions/comments. I'll start at the end of the previous post:
> ...
> I think these are valuable problems to solve, but you should tackle them piece by piece:
>
> 1) the clang part of overriding the individual FMF and emitting the right IR is the first thing to fix.
> 2) the backend is still using the
2017 Oct 02
2
Trouble when suppressing a portion of fast-math-transformations
I'm not aware of any additional bits needed. But putting us right at the edge leaves me uncomfortable. So an implementation that isn't limited by the 7 bits in SubclassOptionalData seems sensible.
Thanks,
-Warren
From: Sanjay Patel [mailto:spatel at rotateright.com]
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 12:06 AM
To: Ristow, Warren
Cc: Hal Finkel; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Subject: Re:
2018 Aug 21
2
Condition code in DAGCombiner::visitFADDForFMACombine?
For this code:
%20 = fmul reassoc nnan arcp contract float %15, %19
%21 = fadd nnan arcp float %20, -1.000000e+00
This does not result in fused multiply-add.
it seems like the logic to contact the fmul from the fadd is different than
whether to decide to contract the fadd. I would think the logic would be
the same for each instruction in the pair.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:05 PM Ryan
2017 Sep 29
2
Trouble when suppressing a portion of fast-math-transformations
Hi all,
In a mailing-list post last November:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/107104.html
I raised some concerns that having the IR-level fast-math-flag 'fast' act as an
"umbrella" to implicitly turn on all the lower-level fast-math-flags, causes
some fundamental problems. Those fundamental problems are related to
situations where a user wants to
2018 Aug 22
2
Condition code in DAGCombiner::visitFADDForFMACombine?
On 21.08.2018 16:08, Ryan Taylor via llvm-dev wrote:
> So I have a test case where:
>
> %20 = fmul nnan arcp float %15, %19
> %21 = fadd reassoc nnan arcp contract float %20, -1.000000e+00
>
> is being contracted in DAG to fmad. Is this correct since the fmul has
> no reassoc or contract fast math flag?
By having the reassoc and contract flags on fadd, the frontend is
2018 Feb 09
9
[RFC] Should we bump the bitcode version in LLVM 6.0?
Hi,
TL;DR
r317488 changed the way fast math flags are laid out in the bitcode and anyone compiling a pre-llvm-6.0 bitcode with llvm-6.0 will lose all the optimizations guarded by isFast and a pre-llvm-6.0 compiler compiling a llvm-6.0 bitcode will potentially generate incorrect code w.r.t. fast math expectations.
Should we bump the bitcode version because of that and have the autoupgrader
2012 Nov 15
3
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] fast-math patches!
New patches with review feedback incorporated:
* Changed single letter flags to short abbreviations ('S' ==> 'nsz')
* Indentation fixes
* Comments don't state function names
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0002-Fast-math-flags-added-to-FPMathOperator.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 4937 bytes
Desc: not