search for: preconditions

...order to make better optimization?For example, if my function has a certain precondition (such as x>0) then it will be possible to better optimize the code given that information (which the compiler does not know).I am new in this field and I don't know if there are ways to tell the compiler preconditions (such as by using some preprocessing directives).Thank you in advance,Niko Zarzani -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121023/257a2358/attachment.html>

...e, if my function has a certain precondition (such as x>0) > > then it will be possible to better optimize the code given that > > information (which the compiler does not know). > > I am new in this field and I don't know if there are ways to tell the > > compiler preconditions (such as by using some preprocessing directives). > > Thank you in advance, > > Niko Zarzani -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121023/742c410f/attachment.html>

...ion? > For example, if my function has a certain precondition (such as x>0) > then it will be possible to better optimize the code given that > information (which the compiler does not know). > I am new in this field and I don't know if there are ways to tell the > compiler preconditions (such as by using some preprocessing directives). > Thank you in advance, > Niko Zarzani

...tion has a certain precondition (such as x>0) >> > then it will be possible to better optimize the code given that >> > information (which the compiler does not know). >> > I am new in this field and I don't know if there are ways to tell the >> > compiler preconditions (such as by using some preprocessing directives). >> > Thank you in advance, >> > Niko Zarzani > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mail...

...zation? > For example, if my function has a certain precondition (such as x>0) then it > will be possible to better optimize the code given that information (which > the compiler does not know). > I am new in this field and I don't know if there are ways to tell the > compiler preconditions (such as by using some preprocessing directives). > Thank you in advance, > Niko Zarzani > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmd...

...######################################################################## > -# Default Targets: > -# The following targets are the standard top level targets for > -# building. > -########################################################################### > - > - > -# Ensure all preconditions are met > -all:: preconditions > - > -# Make sure all the user-target rules are double colon rules > -all :: preconditions > -clean:: preconditions > -install :: preconditions > -uninstall :: preconditions > -check:: preconditions > -dist:: preconditions > -distcheck::...

Hello everbody, i'm currently using the anova()-test for a small data.frame of 40 rows and 2 columns. It works well, but is there any preconditions for a valid variance analysis, that i should consider? Thank you for your answer, Daniel

1) I find typo in Makefile.rules in printvars rule: - $(Echo) "Preconditions: " '$(Preconditions)' + $(Echo) "PreConditions: " '$(PreConditions)' 2) In Makefile.config.in PROJ_SRC_DIR define for LLVM build mode as PROJ_SRC_DIR := $(subst //,/,$(LLVM_SRC_ROOT)/$(patsubst $(PROJ_OBJ_ROOT)%,%,$(PROJ_OBJ_DIR))) and for other project build mod...

I noticed the "Joining a Samba DC to an Existing Active Directory" wiki page was updated yesterday (October 9, 2016.) Under "Preconditions" header, the third bullet point is "If Samba is already configured on this host, remove any existing configuration and databases." Well, "configuration" is start forward, meaning the smb.conf file but, what "databases" is the statement referring to? -- _________...

...ckend directory, in the same transaction as it creates the frontend. Set by the driver domain in response to a plug request; may be deleted by the toolstack. DEPRECATED, see below. The operations: prepare Creates a vdi from a target. Preconditions: state ENOENT request ENOENT Request (xenstore writes by toolstack): request = "prepare" t/* as appropriate Results on success (xenstore writes by driver domain): request ENOENT } applies to success from all op...

Hi all, I have a question about dereferenceable metadata on load instruction. I have a patch (https://reviews.llvm.org/D31539) for LICM that hoists loads with !invariant.group. The motivation example is devirtualization: struct A { virtual void foo(); }; int bar(); void indirect(A &a) { while(bar()) a.foo(); } With -O2 -fstrict-vtable-pointers we get: define void

...arge) group of R users who may be enthusiastic, but are statistical laymen due to a lack of formal education in the area. The half-knowledge that I have is often sufficient to see that many otherwise nice sources of statistical knowledge are dangerously incomplete when it comes to explaining the preconditions required for applying a certain technique (One example: The extensive NIST handbook at http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/ fails to mention that the Wilcoxon rank sum test assumes a continuous distribution underlying the sample) This is not to speak of how to correctly interpret the results...

Hi Sanjay, You used Alive correctly, of course :) At this moment we cannot give you the best precondition. It’s on the todo list, but it’s not even started yet. It’s a much harder problem to solve. We do have a mode to compute the best set of nsw/nuw/exact attributes in the transformed expression, but it’s not enabled on the web interface yet (InstCombine was missing quite a few cases last

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com > wrote: > Hi Piotr, > > On March 31, 2017 at 9:07:42 AM, Piotr Padlewski > (piotr.padlewski at gmail.com) wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have a question about dereferenceable metadata on load instruction. I > > have a patch (https://reviews.llvm.org/D31539) for LICM that hoists >

This might be hard cases making bad law, but the loop: void f (unsigned short *x, int *l) { int c = *l; int i; for (i = 0; i < c; i++) if (x[i]) x[i]++; } is converted to decrement-and-branch form by LoopStrengthReduce while: void f (unsigned short *x, int *l) { int i; for (i = 0; i < *l; i++) if (x[i]) x[i]++; } isn't.

Not sure how off-topic this is, but should we consider/have we considered porting our InstCombines to Alive? The PLDI '15 paper even demos C++ extraction from Alive theorems. I think it'd be a small step from that to extracting tightly optimized VM code, not unlike what Tablegen emits. Everything would be so clean and readable and organized. And edge cases can still be handled manually,

...e (or he, more > accurately) wants to keep supporting it. We might prefer to try to just > support use cases such as your example in alive2. alive1 is python2 though, so someone would need to port it to python3 first. Perhaps a better alternative would be to finish adding missing support for Preconditions/constants into alive2 > John Roman > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

Hi folks, I wonder how to get the statistic of which pass has been "really" applied and which one is not. For instance, I try to apply 20 llvm passes on a single C source code. But since the precondition of each pass may not be satisfied (try loop-unrolling to a source code without loop), some of these pass may not affect the final result. How to know which pass affect and

Hi all, I'm a little surprised at > NULL == c("a", "b") logical(0) > all(NULL == c("a", "b")) [1] TRUE Reading the documentation for all() this was not clear for me to be expected. Originally the question came up when using > match.arg(NULL, c("a", "b")) [1] "a" where I had thought an error would occur. So

Sorry, lots of questions these days. Is there a normal approach for preconditions? In JUnit, I might put a few assertions in the setUp() just to make sure that the test ''data'' I''ve created meets expectations before going to test it. So, for instance, I''ve got an object that is audited using acts_as_audited and I''d like to test the X...