search for: reg3

Is it possible to get a register number to which the value is allocated to in MIPS in DAGToDAG class? More Specifically: SDValue Reg3 = Node->getOperand(3); if (RegisterSDNode *R = dyn_cast<RegisterSDNode>(Reg3)) { op3 = cast<RegisterSDNode>(Reg3)->getReg(); fprintf(stderr,"Op3 is register and regnum is %d\n",op3);...

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 1:59 AM, Ambuj Agrawal <ambujbwt at gmail.com> wrote: > > Is it possible to get a register number to which the value is allocated to in MIPS in DAGToDAG class? > > More Specifically: > SDValue Reg3 = Node->getOperand(3); > if (RegisterSDNode *R = dyn_cast<RegisterSDNode>(Reg3)) > { > op3 = cast<RegisterSDNode>(Reg3)->getReg(); > fprintf(stderr,"Op3 is register and regn...

...> > > On Feb 27, 2015, at 1:59 AM, Ambuj Agrawal <ambujbwt at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Is it possible to get a register number to which the value is allocated > to in MIPS in DAGToDAG class? > > > > More Specifically: > > SDValue Reg3 = Node->getOperand(3); > > if (RegisterSDNode *R = > dyn_cast<RegisterSDNode>(Reg3)) > > { > > op3 = cast<RegisterSDNode>(Reg3)->getReg(); > > fprintf(stderr,"Op...

...ith Y as response variable and X a categorical variable (with 4 categories), with the aim of comparing the basal category of X (category=1) with category 4. Unfortunately, there is another categorical variable with 2 categories which interact with x and I have to include it, so my model is s "reg3: Y=x*x3". Using fit.contrast to make the contrast (category 1 vs category 4) with options(contrasts=c("contr.treatment", "contr.poly")), it makes the contrast but just for the basal category of x3, (coincident with the corresponding result of summary(reg3)), so that it is n...

...o AIC or BIC to choose model parameters. This is somewhat of a general statistics question, but I ask it in this forum as I am looking for a R solution. Suppose I have one dependent variable, y, and two independent variables, x1 an x2. I can perform three regressions: reg1: y~x1 reg2: y~x2 reg3: y~x1+x2 The AIC of reg1 is 2000, reg2 is 1000 and reg3 is 950. One would, presumably, conclude that one should use both x1 and x2. However, the R^2's are quite different: R^2 of reg1 is 0.5%, reg2 is 95% and reg3 is 95.25%. Knowing that, I would actually conclude that x1 adds litte and...

...|| isLoadRR(opcode)){ MachineBasicBlock& MBB = *MFI; MachineInstr& MI = *II; DebugLoc DL = MI.getDebugLoc(); MachineOperand& reg1 = MI.getOperand(0); MachineOperand& reg2 = MI.getOperand(1); MachineOperand& reg3 = MI.getOperand(2); if(reg1.isReg() && reg2.isReg() && reg3.isReg()){ if((reg1.getReg()-8)%4 == (reg3.getReg()-8)%4){ MachineBasicBlock::instr_iterator NII = std::next(II); //conflict if reg1 and reg3 are in same bank...

...ctually working on MIPS backend to generate smaller set of MIPS Instructions compared to its existing supported instructions. > Currently, i am working on shifting instructions. > > Take an example: > A typical mips sllv syntax goes in this manner: > > sllv $reg1,$reg2,$reg3 > > The $reg3 contains the shifting amount. Only the LSB 5 bit will be used. > The $reg2 contains the data to be shifted. > The $reg1 contains the data after shifting is performed. > > What i want to achieve is to expand sllv instruction to the following routine: > >...

...csv("grip.csv")->grip grip class(grip) class(HAND) grip$morph<-as.character(grip$Morph) morph<- grip$morph BML<-grip$BML grip$MCF->MCF reg1<-lm(BML~MCF,data=subset(grip,morph=="mel"));reg1 reg2<-lm(BML~MCF,data=subset(grip,morph=="tham"));reg2 reg3<-lm(BML~MCF,data=subset(grip,morph=="A"));reg3 reg4<-lm(BML~MCF,data=subset(grip,morph=="B"));reg4 reg5<-lm(BML~MCF,data=subset(grip,morph=="C"));reg5 plot(MCF,BML,pch=c(2,6,5,19,15)[grip$morph],xlab="Residual Metacarpal Length",ylab="Residual...

...snippet of a DAG demonstrates the problem. t0: ch = EntryToken t2: i64,ch,glue = CopyFromReg t0, Register:i64 %reg0 t4: i64,ch,glue = CopyFromReg t2:1, Register:i64 %reg1, t2:1 t6: i64,ch,glue = CopyFromReg t4:1, Register:i64 %reg2, t4:1 t8: i64,ch,glue = CopyFromReg t6:1, Register:i64 %reg3, t6:1 t11: ch = CopyToReg t0, Register:i64 %vreg0, t2 t13: ch = CopyToReg t0, Register:i64 %vreg1, t4 t15: ch = CopyToReg t0, Register:i64 %vreg2, t8 t26: ch = TokenFactor t11, t13, t15, t2:1, t4:1, t6:1, t8:1 t16: i64 = sdiv t2, t4 Before legalization, there is...

...u Phone: 334 844-2922 anscombe<-read.table(fname, header=TRUE) names(anscombe)<-c("x1","y1","x2","y2","x3","y3","x4","y4") reg1<-lm(y1~1 + x1, data=anscombe) reg2<-lm(y2~1 + x2, data=anscombe) reg3<-lm(y3~1 + x3, data=anscombe) reg4<-lm(y4~1 + x4, data=anscombe) summary(reg1) summary(reg2) summary(reg3) summary(reg4) par(mfrow=c(2,2)) plot(x1,y1) abline(reg1) plot(x2,y2) abline(reg2) plot(x3,y3) abline(reg3) plot(x4,y4) abline(reg4) .................................................

Dear R users, I have a problem with multicollinearity in mixed models and I am using lmer in package lme4. From previous mailing list, I learn of a reply "http://www.mail-archive.com/r-help at stat.math.ethz.ch/msg38537.html" which states that if not for interpretation but just for prediction, multicollinearity does not matter much. However, I am using mixed model to interpret something,

...bregister is defined, other parts of the register are always left untouched - they are neither read or def:ed. It however seems that Codegen treats subregister definitions as somehow clobbering the whole register. The SSA-code looks like this after isel: (Reg0 and Reg1 are 16bit registers. Reg2, Reg3 and Reg4 are 32 bit registers with 16bit subregs, hi16 and lo16.) Reg0 = #imm0 Reg1 = #imm1 Reg2 = IMPLICIT_DEF Reg3 = INSERT_SUBREG Reg2, Reg0, hi16 Reg4 = INSERT_SUBREG Reg3, Reg1, lo16 After TwoAddressInstructionPass it becomes: Reg5:hi16<def,read-undef> = Reg0 Reg5:lo16<def>...

Running llc with '-verify-machineinstrs' may tell you which instruction break the SSA form. Ruiling From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of jin chuan see via llvm-dev Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:02 AM To: Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Live Register Spilling Sorry about the

On Jan 19, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Patrick Boettcher wrote: > Hi list, > > in our LLVM-based-project we are writing a backend for our > processor. The > architecture is a quite straight-forward RISC, but it does not have > hardware interlocks, i.e. data hazards involving memory access must be > resolved by the compiler, either by scheduling unrelated > instructions or >

...only 3 registers available the code post-hazard-recognized looks like that: load 0x1234, reg1024 load 0x1236, reg1025 load 0x1238, reg1026 load 0x1240, reg1027 add reg1024, 1 add reg1025, 2 add reg1026, 3 add reg1027, 4 after register allocation: load 0x1234, reg1 load 0x1236, reg2 load 0x1238, reg3 add reg1, 1 add reg2, 2 add reg3, 3 store reg1, 0x1234 load 0x1240, reg1 add reg1, 4 Which won't work on our platform. It is missing 2 NOOPs after the last load. The DelaySlotFiller could add the two NOOPs, but that would be less optimal than doing the store-load before the add of reg2 and r...

Hi list, in our LLVM-based-project we are writing a backend for our processor. The architecture is a quite straight-forward RISC, but it does not have hardware interlocks, i.e. data hazards involving memory access must be resolved by the compiler, either by scheduling unrelated instructions or by inserting NOOPs into the load delay slots: ---- For example, code which looks like that: load

...enSUSE 13.1 PPC64. Total of 3 failures which seems to be due the same problem (the value in brackets is the time counter from the build system): [ 3468s] /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/ppc32-vacopy.ll:21:10: error: expected string not found in input [ 3468s] ; CHECK: lwz [[REG3:[0-9]+]], {{.*}} [ 3468s] ^ [ 3468s] <stdin>:15:2: note: scanning from here [ 3468s] stw 5, 16(1) [ 3468s] ^ [ 3468s] <stdin>:17:3: note: possible intended match here [ 3468s] stw 4, 4(7) [ 3468s] ^ [ 3467s] /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/anon_aggr....

.../kvm/intercept.c +++ kvm/arch/s390/kvm/intercept.c @@ -18,6 +18,91 @@ #include <asm/kvm_host.h> #include "kvm-s390.h" +#include "gaccess.h" + +static int handle_lctg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) +{ + int reg1 = (vcpu->arch.sie_block->ipa & 0x00f0) >> 4; + int reg3 = vcpu->arch.sie_block->ipa & 0x000f; + int base2 = vcpu->arch.sie_block->ipb >> 28; + int disp2 = ((vcpu->arch.sie_block->ipb & 0x0fff0000) >> 16) + + ((vcpu->arch.sie_block->ipb & 0xff00) << 4); + u64 useraddr; + int reg, rc; + + vcpu->st...

I am having an issue with lmer that I wonder if someone could explain. I am trying to fit a mixed effects model to a set of longitudinal data over a set of individual subjects: (fm1 <- lmer(x ~ time + (time|ID),aa)) I quite often find that the correlation between the random effects is 1.0: Linear mixed model fit by REML Formula: x ~ time + (time | ID) Data: aa AIC BIC logLik deviance

...eems to be due the same problem (the value > in brackets is the time counter from the build system): > > > > > [ 3468s] > /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/ppc32-vacopy.ll:21:10: > error: expected string not found in input > [ 3468s] ; CHECK: lwz [[REG3:[0-9]+]], {{.*}} > [ 3468s] ^ > [ 3468s] <stdin>:15:2: note: scanning from here > [ 3468s] stw 5, 16(1) > [ 3468s] ^ > [ 3468s] <stdin>:17:3: note: possible intended match here > [ 3468s] stw 4, 4(7) > [ 3468s] ^ > > > > [ 3467s] > /home/abuild/rpm...