search for: roune

There is PostDominatorTree for determining post-dominance. Even if A post-dominates B and B is executed, that doesn't guarantee that A will be executed. For example, there could be an infinite loop in-between. Strong post-dominance makes the stronger guarantee that there will be no infinite loop from B to A. Do we have anything in LLVM for determining strong post-dominance and in general for

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bjarke Roune" <broune at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, "Jingyue Wu" <jingyue at google.com> > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 2:27:59 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Deriving undefined behavior from nsw/inbounds...

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bjarke Roune" <broune at google.com> > To: "Jingyue Wu" <jingyue at google.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 8:16:13 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Deriving undefined behavior from nsw/inbounds/poison for scalar evolution > > Hi Adam, &gt...

...ensive ( https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21148). For this reason, we disabled indvar widening in NVPTX in http://reviews.llvm.org/D6196. Hope it helps. Jingyue On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:59 AM Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 26, 2015, at 4:01 PM, Bjarke Roune <broune at google.com> wrote: > > > > *** Summary > > I'd like to propose (and implement) functionality in LLVM to determine > when a poison value from an instruction is guaranteed to produce undefined > behavior. I want to use that to improve handling of nsw, inbo...

Hi List, I am trying to label a barplot group with variable names when using sapply unsucessfully. I can't seem to extract the names for the indiviual plots: test<-as.data.frame(cbind(round(runif(50,0,5)),round(runif(50,0,3)),roun d(runif(50,0,4)))) sapply(test, table)->vardist sapply(test, function(x) round(table(x)/sum(table(x))*100,1) )->vardist1 par(mfrow=c(1,3))

I have done some searching on the Internet, but not been able to find a solution to my problem. I hope you can help me with this. I have a server at home that runs on FreeBSD 10.3. The file system is ZFS. I have two ZFS pools: tank and fun. I share my ZFS file systems using Samba v4.6.2. When I add recycle bin functionality for a share like below, it work like a charm: [mac] path =

*** Summary I'd like to propose (and implement) functionality in LLVM to determine when a poison value from an instruction is guaranteed to produce undefined behavior. I want to use that to improve handling of nsw, inbounds etc. flags in scalar evolution and LSR. I imagine that there would be other uses for it. I'd like feedback on this idea before I proceed with it. *** Details Poison

Hi Johannes, Sanjoy has given you great information already. On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > Johannes Doerfert wrote: > > Is there any plan to use e.g., post-dominance information to > > propagate wrapping flags? > > None that I'm aware of. > > > If x +nsw y post-dominates the entry block > >

?s 14:36 de 08/02/2024, Olivier Benz via R-devel escreveu: >> On 8 Feb 2024, at 15:15, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: >> >>>>>>> Ji?? Moravec >>>>>>> on Wed, 7 Feb 2024 10:23:15 +1300 writes: >> >>> This is my first time working with dates, so if the answer is "Duh, work >>> with

Hai, Now, i must say, i know nothing about freebsd or zfs. But try these in this order, check what you also use in you global config. vfs objects = zfs_space zfsac catia fruit recycle streams_xattr aio_pthread This should be Zfs and mac compatible. There was a bug which had todo with the loading order of the vfs modules. But if im wrong here, i hope someone on the list corrects me.

...32 0, %addr %t2 = add i32 %x, 1 then transferring NSW to getSCEV(%t) is okay, since even though %t2 (which will be mapped to the same SCEV expression as %t) does not have "nsw" on the instruction, we know adding 1 to %x cannot overflow since the program would have UB otherwise. Bjarke Roune has implemented some of this. However, this is difficult to do for cases like the x+1 .. x+3 loop above without running a control flow analysis over the entire function. And this approach does not work in the presence of function calls or general control flow, like %x = load ... %t = add i32...

...t;> >> then transferring NSW to getSCEV(%t) is okay, since even though %t2 (which will be mapped to the same SCEV expression as %t) does not have "nsw" on the instruction, we know adding 1 to %x cannot overflow since the program would have UB otherwise. >> >> Bjarke Roune has implemented some of this. However, this is difficult to do for cases like the x+1 .. x+3 loop above without running a control flow analysis over the entire function. And this approach does not work in the presence of function calls or general control flow, like >> >> %x = load .....

Technically, there is a round() for 'Date' objects, but it doesn't seem very useful, because it basically just fall back to the default round() method, which only takes the 'digits' argument. Here's an example: > date <- Sys.Date() > class(date) [1] "Date" We see that there are only two round() methods in addition to the implicit built-in one; >

...32 0, %addr %t2 = add i32 %x, 1 then transferring NSW to getSCEV(%t) is okay, since even though %t2 (which will be mapped to the same SCEV expression as %t) does not have "nsw" on the instruction, we know adding 1 to %x cannot overflow since the program would have UB otherwise. Bjarke Roune has implemented some of this. However, this is difficult to do for cases like the x+1 .. x+3 loop above without running a control flow analysis over the entire function. And this approach does not work in the presence of function calls or general control flow, like %x = load ... %t = add i32...

> On 8 Feb 2024, at 15:15, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: > >>>>>> Ji?? Moravec >>>>>> on Wed, 7 Feb 2024 10:23:15 +1300 writes: > >> This is my first time working with dates, so if the answer is "Duh, work >> with POSIXt", please ignore it. > >> Why is not `round.Date` and

This is a workaround, and could be the basis for a round.Date improvement: date <- Sys.Date() as.Date(round(as.POSIXct(date), "years")) as.Date(round(as.POSIXct(Sys.Date() + 180), "years")) Duncan Murdoch On 08/02/2024 12:23 p.m., Henrik Bengtsson wrote: > Technically, there is a round() for 'Date' objects, but it doesn't > seem very useful,

Hi Sanjoy, thanks for your thoughts on this. On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com > wrote: > > First of all, going by the "poison causes UB only when observed", SCEV > does not do the right thing currently: [...] > > That seems like a bug? There's also bug 23527 for GEP. Sounds like there might be more such bugs. One

...ferring NSW to getSCEV(%t) is okay, since even though %t2 >> (which will be mapped to the same SCEV expression as %t) does not have >> "nsw" on the instruction, we know adding 1 to %x cannot overflow since >> the program would have UB otherwise. >> >> Bjarke Roune has implemented some of this. However, this is difficult >> to do for cases like the x+1 .. x+3 loop above without running a >> control flow analysis over the entire function. And this approach >> does not work in the presence of function calls or general control >> flow, l...

Hello everyone, please I need your help. To reproduce my problem I created simple pass for backends (TestPass.cpp in attached files). That pass I call from Mips backend in this way (MipsTargetMachine.cpp): bool MipsPassConfig::addPreRegAlloc() { addPass(createTestPass()); return false; } The problem becomes, when I am trying compile file ldtoa.ll (in attached files). Compiling

>>However, the major API changes this also requires would be rather complex. >>If you're going to provide for callbacks, you obviously have to provide a >>method to actually tell the library what your callbacks are. And they have >>to propagate to _every_ function which might allocate or free memory. >>Hardly trivial.<< You need a