search for: pow

Hi, Current llvm-gcc cannot emit llvm intrinsic function like llvm.pow.* and llvm.sin.* For example: double foo(double x, double y) { return pow(x,y); } will compiled into ll: define double @foo(double %x, double %y) { %tmp3 = tail call double @pow( double %x, double %y ) ret double %tmp3 } This is not consistent with llvm language reference. --------------...

...trou via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:17 -0600 >>> Wei Ding via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I want an efficient way to implement function pow in LLVM instead of >>>> invoking pow() math built-in. For algorithm part, I am clear for the logic. >>>> But I am not quite sure for which parts of LLVM should I replace built-in >>>> pow with another efficient pow implementation. Any comments and feedback >&g...

2007/11/22, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>: > > Hi, > > > Current llvm-gcc cannot emit llvm intrinsic function like llvm.pow.* and > > llvm.sin.* > > For example: > > > > double foo(double x, double y) { > > return pow(x,y); > > } > > > > will compiled into ll: > > > > define double @foo(double %x, double %y) { > > %tmp3 = tail call double @pow( doubl...

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Antoine Pitrou via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:17 -0600 > Wei Ding via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I want an efficient way to implement function pow in LLVM instead of >> invoking pow() math built-in. For algorithm part, I am clear for the logic. >> But I am not quite sure for which parts of LLVM should I replace built-in >> pow with another efficient pow implementation. Any comments and feedback >> are appreciated. Than...

Hi, > Current llvm-gcc cannot emit llvm intrinsic function like llvm.pow.* and > llvm.sin.* > For example: > > double foo(double x, double y) { > return pow(x,y); > } > > will compiled into ll: > > define double @foo(double %x, double %y) { > %tmp3 = tail call double @pow( double %x, double %y ) > ret double %tmp3 > } &gt...

Hi, I want an efficient way to implement function pow in LLVM instead of invoking pow() math built-in. For algorithm part, I am clear for the logic. But I am not quite sure for which parts of LLVM should I replace built-in pow with another efficient pow implementation. Any comments and feedback are appreciated. Thanks! -- Wei Ding -------------- nex...

The transformation in LibCallSimplifier::replacePowWithSqrt with respect to -Inf uses a select instruction, which based on the observed behaviour, incorporates the side effects of the unchosen branch. This means that (for pow) a call to sqrt(-Inf) is materialized. Such a call is specified as having a domain error (C17 subclause 7.12.7.5) since the o...

...submitting this to r-bugs, since Thomas Lumley indicates that it might be an error: On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Thomas Lumley wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, halvorsen wrote: > > > Hola! > > > > I have the following simple function: > > > > > testcar > > function(pow){ > > ob <- glm(Pound~CG+Age+Vage,data=car,weights=No, > > subset=No>0,family=quasi(link=power(pow),var=mu^2)) > > > > deviance(ob) > > } > > But trying to run it gives: > > > > > testcar(1/2) > > Error in power(po...

...) you don't understand one of them or (c) you find a bug in one of them. Thanks, Reid abs: * abs(cnst) -> cnst' atan: * atan(0.0) -> 0.0 * atan(1.0) -> pi/4 cbrt: * cbrt(constant) -> constant' * cbrt(expN(X)) -> expN(x/3) * cbrt(sqrt(x)) -> pow(x,1/6) * cbrt(sqrt(x)) -> pow(x,1/9) ceil, ceilf, ceill: * ceil(constant) -> constant' cos, cosf, cosl: * cos(0.0) -> 1.0 * cox(-x) -> cos(x) exp, expf, expl: * exp(0.0) -> 1.0 * exp(int) -> contant' * exp(log(x)) -> x fabs, fabsf...

Sorry - I misread your example and the problem. I see now where LibCallSimplifier creates the select...but we are immediately erasing that select with the code from the godbolt example. Does the real motivating case have no uses of the pow() result value? On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 1:03 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > Yes, I mean just bail out on the transform in > LibCallSimplifier::replacePowWithSqrt() -> getSqrtCall(). If we can't prove > the call behaves the same with errno, then give up....

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 12:45 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > Yes, that looks like a bug. The transform is ok in general for negative > numbers, but -Inf is a special-case for pow(), right? > If so, we probably need an extra check of the input with > "isKnownNeverInfinity()". > There is an extra check there already, but it uses "select" instead of branching. One question is if branching is okay to use instead. Or perhaps you mean the transform sh...

...>>> On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:17 -0600 >>>>> Wei Ding via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I want an efficient way to implement function pow in LLVM instead of >>>>>> invoking pow() math built-in. For algorithm part, I am clear for the logic. >>>>>> But I am not quite sure for which parts of LLVM should I replace built-in >>>>>> pow with another efficient pow implementation. Any comm...

Hola! I have the following simple function: > testcar function(pow){ ob <- glm(Pound~CG+Age+Vage,data=car,weights=No, subset=No>0,family=quasi(link=power(pow),var=mu^2)) deviance(ob) } But trying to run it gives: > testcar(1/2) Error in power(pow) : Object "pow" not found I have tried to use debug on...

Hi, > Sure. But now the question is the llvm-gcc will not emit llvm.pow.* anytime. indeed there seems to be no code in llvm-gcc to do so, though there is code for raising to an integer power (in llvm-convert). Please feel free to investigate and add some. Presumably it should turn gcc's BUILT_IN_POW into llvm.pow.*. That said, as far as I can see the C front-end...

Suppose I have a square matrix P P <- matrix(c(.3,.7, .7, .3), ncol=2) I know that > P * P Returns the element by element product, whereas > P%*%P Returns the matrix product. Now, P^2 also returns the element by element product. But, is there a slick way to write P %*% P %*% P Obviously, P^3 does not return the result I expect. Thanks, Harold [[alternative HTML version

Hi, It looks like SimplifyLibCalls has a tendency to emit calls to libm functions without checking with TLI whether these calls are available. For example, PowOpt has this code: struct PowOpt : public UnsafeFPLibCallOptimization { PowOpt(bool UnsafeFPShrink) : UnsafeFPLibCallOptimization(UnsafeFPShrink) {} virtual Value *callOptimizer(Function *Callee, CallInst *CI, IRBuilder<> &B) { Value *Ret = NULL; if (UnsafeFPShrink &&...

OK, I have made a little search about this "problem" that apparently occurs only on Windows platform... (but I am sure most of you are already aware of it): the slow down is due to the adoption of a different algorithm for pow in mingw 3.x. This is motivated by some other changes in mingw. Here is a quote of Danny Smith that did this change: >When mingw changed default FPU settings from 53-bit mantissa >to 64 bit mantisa, the dll-provided pow function no longer >returned integral values when both operands were...

...: /usr/share/R/include/Rinternals.h:770: error: expected declaration specifiers or ?...? before ?FILE? /usr/share/R/include/Rinternals.h:773: error: expected declaration specifiers or ?...? before ?FILE? colorspace.c: In function ?gtrans?: colorspace.c:28: warning: implicit declaration of function ?pow? colorspace.c:28: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function ?pow? colorspace.c: In function ?ftrans?: colorspace.c:36: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function ?pow? colorspace.c: In function ?g?: colorspace.c:92: warning: incompatible implicit declarati...

...by-1.9.3-p125/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.9.1/rubygems/ custom_require.rb:36:in `require'' ~/.rvm/rubies/ruby-1.9.3-p125/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.9.1/rubygems/ custom_require.rb:36:in `require'' ~/projects/pantene_us/config.ru:3:in `block in <main>'' ~/Library/Application Support/Pow/Versions/0.3.2/node_modules/nack/lib/ nack/builder.rb:4:in `instance_eval'' ~/Library/Application Support/Pow/Versions/0.3.2/node_modules/nack/lib/ nack/builder.rb:4:in `initialize'' ~/projects/pantene_us/config.ru:1:in `new'' ~/projects/pantene_us/config.ru:1:in `<main&g...

PS: It is possible that the C front-end doesn't need to explicitly produce BUILT_IN_POW because it is auto-synthesized somehow from a call to "pow". I wouldn't know. One way to find out is to compile a testcase and rummage around inside the gcc trees when they hit llvm-convert.