search for: propagators

Hello, I wonder if llvm has pure range propagation pass. Is correlated value propagation that one? It seems that it is not directly deals with ranges. Maybe there any passes that simply contain some information about value ranges? Will symbolic value range propagation be done in some time? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi all, I am currently compiling R to RISC-V64 CPU and I think I have discovered a NA propagation failure. How R implements NA (not available) and NaN (not-a-number) is explained in detail here: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2014-February/068380.html. In short, according to my understanding of R's convention, any calculation involving NA but no NaN should result in NA (called NA

Constant propagation pass generates constant expression when undef is used in float instructions instead of propagating the undef value. ; Function Attrs: nounwind define float @_Z1fv() #0 { entry: %add = fadd fast float undef, 2.000000e+00 ret float %add } Becomes: ; Function Attrs: nounwind define float @_Z1fv() #0 { entry: ret float fadd (float undef, float 2.000000e+00) } Is it safe

On 12/9/13 2:13 PM, Raoux, Thomas F wrote: > > Constant propagation pass generates constant expression when undef is > used in float instructions instead of propagating the undef value. > > ; Function Attrs: nounwind > > define float @_Z1fv() #0 { > > entry: > > %add = fadd fast float undef, 2.000000e+00 > > ret float %add > > } > > Becomes:

Here we use a (custom-made, internal) password propagation system, hooked around 'check password script'. Recently we suffer a network outgage (another one ;-), and the system that take care of password propagation goes offline. + NT domains continue to work, clearly password not propagate + AD domain stop to work (eg, users password change on windows stop to work), because the

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com> > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 2:55:36 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Float undef value propagation > > > > On 12/9/13 2:13 PM, Raoux, Thomas F wrote: > > > > > > Constant propagation pass generates constant expression

Hello. I'm writing an LLVM pass that is working on LLVM IR. To my surprise the following LLVM pass code generates optimized code - it does copy propagation on it. Value *vecShuffleOnePtr = Builder.CreateGEP(ptr_B, vecShuffleOne, "VectorGep"); ... packed_gather_params.push_back(vecShuffleOnePtr); CallInst *callGather =

Hi, Thank you for all your helpful comments. To sum up, below is the list of correct folding examples for fadd: (1) fadd %x, -0.0 -> %x (2) fadd undef, undef -> undef (3) fadd %x, undef -> NaN (undef is a NaN which is propagated) Looking through the code I found the "NoNaNs" flag accessed through an instance of

Hi all, I am trying to see how single llvm optimizations work by running them one by one with opt and looking how the IR changes.Since I was interested in seeing how constant propagation was working I tried to run opt on the Sparse Conditional Constant Propagation, however by passing as argument -S -sccp -die it does not change anything in the output IR code. I attached the file with the source

You are right some cases would definitely not be right like undef + Nan -> undef. For 2.0f case I'm not sure either if any bits could be known. It seems that in general fadd( float undef, float %1) -> float %1 should always be safe and I just checked with latest code this doesn't happen. Do you think the right solution would be to add such optimization? Is there any reason why we

Hello. Could you please tell me how can I optimize with the back end (llc) the following piece of assembly code generated by llc: // NOTE: my processor accepts loops in the form of REPEAT(num_times)..END_REPEAT R0 = ... REPEAT(256) R5 = R0; // basically unnecessary reg. copy REPEAT(256) R10 = LS[R4]; R2 = LS[R5]; R4 =

Hi, I used the following commands on the program attached below: llvm-gcc --emit-llvm main.c -c -o main.bc opt -ipconstprop main.bc -o main1.bc diff main.bc main1.bc no difference was o/p :( The Program Segment is as shown below: #include <stdio.h> void f1(int a) { a=a+1; printf("%d",a); } void f2() { int b; b=1; f1(b); } int main() { int

Hello, I've filled a bug to track the issue we've recently seen in our LLVM-based compiler: the Correlated Value Propagation Pass may become significantly slow on certain files. According to opt time profiles, value propagation alone is very fast (less than 1 second), -O3 with value propagation turned off is acceptable (31 secs), but with value propagation included it becomes too slow

> On Dec 30, 2016, at 3:03 PM, Alex Susu via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello. > I'm writing an LLVM pass that is working on LLVM IR. > To my surprise the following LLVM pass code generates optimized code - it does copy propagation on it. It does *constant* propagation to be exact. > Value *vecShuffleOnePtr = Builder.CreateGEP(ptr_B,

Hello, I wish to examine the influence of error in variables on my analyses via error propagation. I have a data frame (x) as follows: id response 1 -121 2 -131 3 -125 etc..... I wish to propagate errors for each row in the data frame, where error is distributed around the value of the response variable. To do this, I wish to simulate 1000 variables for each row in the above data

Dear R-helpers, I´m in the context of writing a general function for error propagation in R. There are somehow a few questions I would like to ask (discuss), as my statistical knowledge is somewhat restricted. Below is the function I wrote, the questions are marked. Many thanks in advance. propagate <- function(expr, varList, type = c("stat", "raw"), cov = TRUE) {

Hi Duncan, On 17.09.2014 21:10, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Oleg, > > On 17/09/14 18:45, Oleg Ranevskyy wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Thank you for all your helpful comments. >> >> To sum up, below is the list of correct folding examples for fadd: >> (1) fadd %x, -0.0 -> %x >> (2) fadd undef, undef -> undef

Hello Bernardo, --------- If I understood your problem this script solve your problem: q<-0.15 + c(-.1,0,.1) h<-10 + c(-.1,0,.1) 5*q*h [1] 2.475 7.500 12.625 --------- OK, this solves the simple example. But what if the example is not that simple. E.g. P = 5 * q/h Here, to get the maximum tolerances for P, we need to divide the maximum value for q by the minimum value for h, and

Hello: I would like to use Asterisk as a redirect/proxy sip server to route SIP calls on a sip header/parameter basis. I've tried some things successfully: - SIP registration from clients. - On-the-fly compression for wan VoIP transfers: SIP G.711 --> GSM IAX --> (wan) --> GSM IAX --> SIP G.711 - Sending custom parameters in URI: exten => 1,1,Setvar,VXML_URL=var1=value1

On using builtin functions we have to move the input to registers $0 and $1, if one of the input value is an immediate, we fail to propagate the immediate: ... mov u32 $r477 0x00000003 (0) ... mov u32 $r0 %r473 (0) mov u32 $r1 $r477 (0) call abs BUILTIN:0 (0) mov u32 %r495 $r1 (0) ... With this patch the immediate is propagated, potentially causing the first MOV to be superfluous, which we'd