search for: proved

[+Arnold] > On Jun 10, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > [+CC Andy] > >> Can anyone familiar with ScalarRevolution tell me whether this is an >> expected behavior or a bug? > > Assuming you're talking about 2*k, this is a bug. ScalarEvolution > should be able to prove that {0,+,4} is <nsw> and

I am testing vectorization on the following test case: float x[1024], y[1024]; void myloop1() { for (long int k = 0; k < 512; k++) { x[2*k] = x[2*k]+y[k]; } } Vectorization failed due to "unsafe dependent memory operation". I traced the LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp and found the reason is the NoWrapFlag for SCEVAddRecExpr is not set and consequently the

Dear R-helper, Please suggest some methods for my question below. We measured the amount of protein A in patient blood in pre-treatment and post-treatment condition from 32 patients. -------------------------------------------- Pre-treatment Post-treatment Pat1 25 28 Pat2 19 15 Pat3 94

On Jun 27, 2010, at 2:26 PM, Eugene Toder wrote: > Hi Dan, > > Are you referring to my reasoning for why _length and _data[i] do not > alias? No, I was referring to the discussion of C99 6.7.2.1, 6.5.6, 6.2.6, and so on. > I don't think this needs TBAA or any "strict" aliasing rules. > All that sufficient is 1) assumption about struct layout: >

On 10 August 2013 15:32, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Hi Jakob, > > Thanks for creating this interesting proposal. > Let me just comment on this part: > > >>> What might be better is to put some abstract interface between >>> instcombine and the IR, so that instcombine can be run on these pseudo-MIs >>> as well as on IR. >>

Dear List, I'm now working on MLE and OSL estimators.I just noticed that the textbook argues they are joint normal distributed.But how to prove the conclusion? Thanks for your time in advance! Best, Ning

> On Jun 10, 2015, at 6:17 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > I'm not sure if inbounds can be used to prove <nuw>. If an object > %OBJ is allocated at address -1 then "gep inbounds %OBJ 1" is not > poison, but the underlying computation unsigned-overflows. I think that this should yield poison per langref because the signed

>>>> What might be better is to put some abstract interface between >>>> instcombine and the IR, so that instcombine can be run on these >>>> pseudo-MIs >>>> as well as on IR. >>> >>> >>> I like the idea of sharing code between IR and MI passes through an >>> abstract interface. I think that later stages in the IR

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Michael Hennebry <hennebry at web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote: > Unix and ntp handle leap seconds a bit differently. > Unix time increases during the leap second and drops back a second after. > Ntp freezes time during the leap second. > OS kernels may do either or neither. Does anyone have a succinct summary of how to prove to management-types that

Colleagues, I am trying to learn to use uniroot to solve a simple linear equation. I define the function, prove the function and a call to the function works. When I try to use uniroot to solve the equation I get an error message, Error in yfu n(x,10,20) : object 'x' not found. I hope someone can tell we how I can fix the problem

Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 194 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060206/cf123b71/PGP.bin

> On Jul 20, 2017, at 11:22 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:17 AM Peter Lawrence via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > Chandler, > The only thing David made clear that wasn’t already clear > is that he believes UB to be “comparatively

> only if the compiler can prove that the called function has > no side effects (such as modifying some global variables or > causing the program to exit). can it prove if the function resides in a shared library? -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/DCE-and-external-function-tp29932485p29942236.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Thanks for your insides Sanjoy! I don't really believe that option 2 may work just because even if we recalculate the range for this add recurrency, there are already its derivatives with cached ranges (the most obvious example is sext and expressions where this sext is involved). We can speculate about what is "simple enough" to not cache the ranges, but I believe that there is

Thanks very much for the quick response. I have read the text many times, but it was not very clear to me why checking the two conditions involving dominance frontiers is equivalent to proving the pair {entry, exit} defines a refined region. I was asking for an mathematical proof really. It sounds to me like there should be a theorem or two in the graph theory endorsing it. Or do you mean, the

Hello Everyone, I want to raise a discussion about reasonability of late setting of nsw/nuw/nw flags to SCEV AddRecs through setNoWrapFlags method. A discussion about this have already happened in August last year, there was a concern about different no-wrap flags that come from different sequences of SCEV flags invocations. It was mentioned there that late setting of flags is actually a hack to

Hi Jakob, Thanks for creating this interesting proposal. Let me just comment on this part: >> What might be better is to put some abstract interface between >> instcombine and the IR, so that instcombine can be run on these >> pseudo-MIs as well as on IR. > > I like the idea of sharing code between IR and MI passes through an > abstract interface. I think that later

Hi Max, On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:03 PM, Maxim Kazantsev via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I want to raise a discussion about reasonability of late setting of > nsw/nuw/nw flags to SCEV AddRecs through setNoWrapFlags method. A discussion > about this have already happened in August last year, there was a concern > about different no-wrap flags that come from

...looping >> function" problem, it just makes it less obvious. >> >> In short, I think this is the wrong way round. I reckon a better strategy >> would be to introduce a new attribute "finite" (we can argue about the name), >> which means that we know or proved that the function completes in finite time. >> Then functions which are not "finite" would be considered to have side-effects. >> >> This way, functions which obviously infinite loop and functions which also >> infinite loop but we can't tell will both be consi...

Remember James McGovern and his articles about Rails and enterprise? Well... Check this one out where he "puts his money where his mouth is" http://duckdown.blogspot.com/2006/04/ruby-community-proved-mcgovern-wrong.html -- -------------- Jon Gretar Borgthorsson http://www.jongretar.net/