Displaying 11 results from an estimated 11 matches for "nomath".
Did you mean:
nmath
2011 Dec 02
1
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
...;> case Intrinsic::powi:
>> case Intrinsic::sin:
>> case Intrinsic::cos:
>> case Intrinsic::log:
>> case Intrinsic::log2:
>> case Intrinsic::log10:
>> case Intrinsic::exp:
>> case Intrinsic::exp2:
>> case Intrinsic::pow:
>> return !NoMath;
>> case Intrinsic::fma:
>> return !NoFMA;
>> }
>>
>> Is this switch exhaustive or are you missing a default case?
>
> You're not looking at the most-recent version. You had (correctly)
> commented on this last time, and I had corrected it.
I look at l...
2005 Aug 29
2
Samba+MySQL+Apache Authentication = possible?
Good evening,
I don't know if this is the right place to ask... but I gotta start
somewhere..
I have Samba setup as a PDC for my domain using the MySQL passdb backend for
authentication. I would also like to use other components such as
mod_auth_mysql for apache authentication.
Is there a way that it can use one of the 2 password fields from the samba
MySQL table (nt_pw or lm_pw) in
2011 Nov 17
2
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
...case Intrinsic::cos:
> + case Intrinsic::log:
> + case Intrinsic::log2:
> + case Intrinsic::log10:
> + case Intrinsic::exp:
> + case Intrinsic::exp2:
> + case Intrinsic::pow:
> + isGoodIntr = !NoMath;
Is the fallthrough intended here?
> + case Intrinsic::fma:
> + isGoodIntr = !NoFMA;
I would also put a break here.
What happends in the default case or do you cover all intrinsics.?
> + }
> + }
> + }
Most of these '{}' are...
2011 Nov 21
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
...t; + case Intrinsic::log:
> > + case Intrinsic::log2:
> > + case Intrinsic::log10:
> > + case Intrinsic::exp:
> > + case Intrinsic::exp2:
> > + case Intrinsic::pow:
> > + isGoodIntr = !NoMath;
> Is the fallthrough intended here?
>
> > + case Intrinsic::fma:
> > + isGoodIntr = !NoFMA;
> I would also put a break here.
>
> What happends in the default case or do you cover all intrinsics.?
> > + }
> > + }
&...
2011 Nov 16
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
Tobias, et al.,
Attached is the my autovectorization pass. I've fixed a bug that appears
when using -bb-vectorize-aligned-only, fixed some 80-col violations,
etc., and at least on x86_64, all test cases pass except for a few; and
all of these failures look like instruction-selection bugs. For example:
MultiSource/Applications/ClamAV - fails to compile shared_sha256.c with
an error: error in
2011 Nov 15
3
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
Tobias,
I've attached the latest version of my autovectorization patch. I was
able to add support for using the ScalarEvolution analysis for
load/store pairing (thanks for your help!). This led to a modest
performance increase and a modest compile-time increase. This version
also has a cutoff as you suggested (although the default value is set
high (4000 instructions between pairs) because
2011 Dec 02
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
...h(IID) {
> case Intrinsic::sqrt:
> case Intrinsic::powi:
> case Intrinsic::sin:
> case Intrinsic::cos:
> case Intrinsic::log:
> case Intrinsic::log2:
> case Intrinsic::log10:
> case Intrinsic::exp:
> case Intrinsic::exp2:
> case Intrinsic::pow:
> return !NoMath;
> case Intrinsic::fma:
> return !NoFMA;
> }
>
> Is this switch exhaustive or are you missing a default case?
You're not looking at the most-recent version. You had (correctly)
commented on this last time, and I had corrected it.
>
> > + // Returns true if J is...
2011 Dec 02
5
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
...gt;getIntrinsicID();
if (!IID)
return false;
switch(IID) {
case Intrinsic::sqrt:
case Intrinsic::powi:
case Intrinsic::sin:
case Intrinsic::cos:
case Intrinsic::log:
case Intrinsic::log2:
case Intrinsic::log10:
case Intrinsic::exp:
case Intrinsic::exp2:
case Intrinsic::pow:
return !NoMath;
case Intrinsic::fma:
return !NoFMA;
}
Is this switch exhaustive or are you missing a default case?
> + // Returns true if J is the second element in some ValuePair referenced by
> + // some multimap ValuePair iterator pair.
> + bool isSecondInVPIteratorPair(VPIteratorPair Pa...
2011 Dec 14
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
...h(IID) {
> case Intrinsic::sqrt:
> case Intrinsic::powi:
> case Intrinsic::sin:
> case Intrinsic::cos:
> case Intrinsic::log:
> case Intrinsic::log2:
> case Intrinsic::log10:
> case Intrinsic::exp:
> case Intrinsic::exp2:
> case Intrinsic::pow:
> return !NoMath;
> case Intrinsic::fma:
> return !NoFMA;
> }
>
> Is this switch exhaustive or are you missing a default case?
>
> > + // Returns true if J is the second element in some ValuePair referenced by
> > + // some multimap ValuePair iterator pair.
> > + bo...
2011 Nov 23
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 21:22 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 11:55 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote:
> > Tobias,
> >
> > I've attached an updated patch. It contains a few bug fixes and many
> > (refactoring and coding-convention) changes inspired by your comments.
> >
> > I'm currently trying to fix the bug responsible for causing a compile
2011 Nov 22
5
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 11:55 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote:
> Tobias,
>
> I've attached an updated patch. It contains a few bug fixes and many
> (refactoring and coding-convention) changes inspired by your comments.
>
> I'm currently trying to fix the bug responsible for causing a compile
> failure when compiling
>