search for: redfining

On 21.05.2013, at 23:03, "Gurd, Preston" <preston.gurd at intel.com> wrote: > Thanks for the fix! > > However, there still seems to be a problem in that if you pass –ffast-math to clang, then clang changes “sqrt” to be “__sqrt_finite”. LLVM cannot then change the function call into an x86 sqrt instruction, even with –fno-math-errno set. > > Can you suggest

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Vaivaswatha Nagaraj" <vn at compilertree.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Joseph Tremoulet" <jotrem at microsoft.com>, "llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 9:50:25 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: New function attribute

Hi all, I'd like to thank those who helped me with my previous loop function question with agents/events. I have solved the problem with the advice from this community. I have now moved on to the next step, which requires me to find all the transition pair within an event. A sample data and the R commands I've written are as follow: x <-

Thanks for the fix! However, there still seems to be a problem in that if you pass –ffast-math to clang, then clang changes “sqrt” to be “__sqrt_finite”. LLVM cannot then change the function call into an x86 sqrt instruction, even with –fno-math-errno set. Can you suggest where I might look in the clang code to find the place where “sqrt” is converted to “__sqrt_finite” and/or the best way to

Hi, If these are the options, I'm also in favour of approach B. Approach A redefines ReadNone, which I don't think is acceptable. James On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 at 08:15 Vaivaswatha Nagaraj via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >I am in favor of approach B (although perhaps with different names). > Just to clarify, this does not requires any propagation of

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joseph Tremoulet" <jotrem at microsoft.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 3:35:38 PM > Subject: RE: [llvm-dev] RFC: New function attribute

Vaivaswatha Nagaraj via llvm-dev wrote: > >I'm against adding this as a "subtractive" attribute. We need to add these as new attributes, not as an attribute that > makes readonly a little less read only. I believe we're in agreement on this point. > Just to make sure I understood right, below are the things that need to be done: > (Approach A) > 1. We