search for: saddly

Several instruction set architectures include arithmetic operations that can trap on overflow, or support this feature with a separate trap-on-overflow-flag instruction (such as the x86 INTO instruction). I am adding a back-end to the Open Dylan compiler to generate LLVM IR. The original back-end, which generates x86 machine code, makes use of the INTO instruction, and the runtime turns the

Hi, all. I have noticed that LLVM supports some Intrinsic Functions such as *"** llvm.sadd.with.overflow"* described in http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#int_sadd_overflow. We can use these functions and needn't define the function bodies. For example, I can manually insert codes: * %res = call {i32, i1} @llvm.sadd.with.overflow.i32(i32 %a, i32 %b) %sum = extractvalue

On Aug 9, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Peter S. Housel wrote: > Several instruction set architectures include arithmetic operations that can trap on overflow, or support this feature with a separate trap-on-overflow-flag instruction (such as the x86 INTO instruction). > > > I am adding a back-end to the Open Dylan compiler to generate LLVM IR. The original back-end, which generates x86

After chatting on IRC, Peter wants a very specific interrupt (int4 on x86). I suggested he add a new llvm.x86.int(i32) intrinsic, and use the existing branch on llvm.sadd.with.overflow intrinsic. The x86 backend can then turn jo+int4 into into when reasonable. -Chris On Aug 9, 2010, at 5:45 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Aug 9, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Peter S. Housel wrote: > >>

Hi guys, I just noticed that the LLVM has some node for signed/unsigned type( like udiv, sdiv), but why the ADD, SUB do not have the counter part sadd, uadd? best kevin

The enclosed patch adds a llvm.x86.int(i8) intrinsic expanding to the INT or INT3 instruction as appropriate. I haven't yet figured out the best way to select for the INTO instruction across basic blocks (hints would be welcome), but that can be added later with no changes in semantics. -Peter- On Aug 9, 2010, at 6:05 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > After chatting on IRC, Peter wants a very

I'm interested in using @llvm.experimental.vector.reduce.smax/umax to implement runtime overflow checking for vectors. Here's an example checked addition, without vectors, and then I'll follow the example with what I would do for checked addition with vectors. Frontend code (zig): export fn entry() void { var a: i32 = 1; var b: i32 = 2; var x = a + b; } LLVM IR code:

The IR update to allow vector types was here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57090 ...we didn't update the docs at that time because it was not clear what the backend would do with that, but that might've changed with some of the more recent patches. On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 1:42 AM Craig Topper via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I don't think I understand your

On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 6:25 PM Simon Pilgrim <llvm-dev at redking.me.uk> wrote: > The add/sub (+mul) overflow intrinsics are being updated to support > vectors to match the related add/sub saturation intrinsics. We haven't > updated the docs yet as legalization, vectorization and various minor bits > of plumbing still need to be finished before it can be officially supported

Dear R users, Would it be difficult to change the code of stepAIC (from the MASS library) to use AICc instead of AIC? It would be great to know of someone has tried this already. Best wishes Christoph.

Hi everyone, We seem to have allowed our documented target-independent intrinsics to acquire a somewhat-haphazard naming system, and I think we should standardize on one convention. All of the intrinsics have 'llvm.' as a prefix, and some also have some additional prefix 'llvm.dbg.', 'llvm.eh.', 'llvm.experimental.', etc., but after that we lose consistency. When

Hello, We are looking to adjust the font size of the axis annotation on the graph that results from use of the metaplot() function. Metaplot seems to respond to cex and cex.lab to change those graphical parameters, but it doesn't respond to cex.axis. Is there a way to work around this by creating a customized x-axis, and if so, how? Thanks for all your help. Syntax is below. Best, Dawn

Hi Pete, > Or do you mean that the result of an add may not even be defined? In that case would reading it be considered UB in the case where the overflow bit was set? Yeah, this is the case I'm worried about: that for example sadd.with.overflow(INT_MAX, 1) might be designed to return { poison, true } instead of giving a useful result in the first element of the struct. John

>> In other words, abandoning overflow detection makes the >> duplication of types redundant, while requiring it would be a >> great burden on CPUs that don't have overflow exception hardware. > >Yes, you're right. This has been a desired change for quite some time >now. Unfortunately, its a huge impact to nearly every part of LLVM. We >will

Hi all, I would like to limit access to our samba shared printers to certain user groups by commandline without using Windows. Is this possible? Thanks! Christoph

CGP also relies on the add being a simple two's complement add, since it will transform define void @test1(i64 %a, i64 %b, i64* %res_i64, i1* %res_i1) { entry: %add = add i64 %b, %a %cmp = icmp ult i64 %add, %a store i1 %cmp, i1* %res_i1 store i64 %add, i64* %res_i64 ret void } to define void @test1(i64 %a, i64 %b, i64* %res_i64, i1* %res_i1) { entry: %uadd.overflow = call

Something like this should work I think. ; ModuleID = 'test.ll' source_filename = "test.ll" define void @entry(<4 x i32>* %a, <4 x i32>* %b, <4 x i32>* %x) { Entry: %tmp = load <4 x i32>, <4 x i32>* %a, align 16 %tmp1 = load <4 x i32>, <4 x i32>* %b, align 16 %tmp2 = add <4 x i32> %tmp, %tmp1 %tmpsign = icmp slt <4 x

> Why? I'd prefer we avoid introducing even more special cases. Is there > any reason why we should not define "complex <scalar type>", or to be > more restrictive, "complex <floating-point type>"? I really don't like > the idea of excluding 128-bit complex types, and I think that we can > have a generic facility. Hal, we had 128-bit

Hi, I’d like to propose to extend LLVM IR intrinsics set, adding new ones for safe-division. There are intrinsics for detecting overflow errors, like sadd.with.overflow, and the intrinsics I’m proposing will augment this set. The new intrinsics will return a structure with two elements according to the following rules: safe.[us]div(x,0) = safe.[us]rem(x,0) = {0, 1} safe.sdiv(min<T>, -1) =

Hi, The add.with.overflow instrinsics don't seem to work with constant arguments, i.e. changing the call in add-with-overflow.ll to: %t = call {i32, i1} @llvm.sadd.with.overflow.i32(i32 0, i32 0) causes the following exception when running the codegen tests: llc: DAGCombiner.cpp:646: void<unnamed>::DAGCombiner::Run(llvm::CombineLevel): Assertion `N->getValueType(0) ==