search for: signbits

cmake -E cmake_progress_report llvm-3.8.0.src_bld_x86_64-rhel6.4-linux-gnu/CMakeFiles In file included from llvm-3.8.0.src/projects/libcxx/include/__hash_table:19:0, from llvm-3.8.0.src/projects/libcxx/src/hash.cpp:10: llvm-3.8.0.src/projects/libcxx/include/cmath:310:9: error: '::signbit' has not been declared using ::signbit; ^

Greetings! I have been building llvm-3.6.x, 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 with (glibc-2.12.1, binutils-2.24, gcc-4.9.2) almost same set if CMake flags. However while building LLVM-3.8.0 using same CMake flags I am observing projects/libcxx/include/cmath errors... ...'::signbit' has not been declared ...'::fpclassify' has not been declared ...'::isfinite' has not been declared ...

> -----Original Message----- > From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 1:01 AM > To: Tim Shen > Cc: Gao, Yunzhong; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Kit Barton; Nemanja Ivanovic > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Endianness for multi-word types > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tim Shen via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at

Hi, I'm recently trying to investigate ppc_fp128 related problem. Here is a minimal C++ test case that seems wrongly compiled: long double id(long double a) { return a; } bool f(long double x) { return id(__builtin_fabsl(x)) >= 0; } int main() { if (f(-123.l)) { return 0; } return 1; } The program compiled with command: clang++ -static -target powerpc64le-linux-gnu bad.cc

On Oct 24, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On Oct 23, 2015, at 7:43 PM, Matthew Fernandez via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> On 21/10/15 00:15, Stephen Canon wrote: >>> Yup, this is UB. If you want to propose a patch, I would do something like the following: >>> >>> rep_t sign

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:24 PM Gao, Yunzhong < yunzhong_gao at playstation.sony.com> wrote: > According to > http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/ELF/ppc64/PPC-elf64abi.html, > "The high-order double-precision value (the one that comes first in > storage) must have the larger magnitude." > > So the order of the two doubles in your fp128 is not affected by the

Thanks for the confirmation, Steve. Your suggestion looks good to me, but I don't have an environment set up to build the test suite so it may take me a little while to get back to you with a validated patch. A bit of creative grepping yields the following that also look problematic to me: compiler-rt/test/builtins/Unit/absvsi2_test.c: expected = -expected;

I've been working on some basic library call optimizations, the SimplifyLibCalls pass (lib/Transforms/IPO/SimplifyLibCalls.cpp). Tonight I conjured up a list of the potential libcall simplifications that could be done. There's a lot of them. I could use some help if anyone wants to pitch in. The individual optimizations are self-contained and fairly straight forward to write. They range

> On Mar 6, 2018, at 4:25 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > >> On Mar 6, 2018, at 7:23 AM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> I need to review the last thread about undef/poison (or someone who knows current status of that can reply), but

Hi Pawel, can you please pull this dragonegg patch into 3.2. I am the code owner for dragonegg. Thanks a lot, Duncan. On 28/11/12 13:44, Duncan Sands wrote: > Author: baldrick > Date: Wed Nov 28 06:44:50 2012 > New Revision: 168787 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=168787&view=rev > Log: > Add support for GCC's vector copysign builtins, fixing

On 26/10/15 02:54, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 06:46:48AM -0400, Steve Canon via llvm-dev wrote: >> On Oct 24, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Oct 23, 2015, at 7:43 PM, Matthew Fernandez via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>> On 21/10/15 00:15,

FYI, I was looking at the SSE/AVX codegen here: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20578 If LLVM starts caring about FP exceptions, even this won't be possible. Is there a way of doing an IEEE-754 fneg in C/C++? Ie, there's no fneg() in libm, so any C method we choose could cause an exception, and that's not allowed by the IEEE definition of fneg. On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:29 PM,

I am not entirely sure this is safe. Transforming this to an fsub could change the value stored on platforms that implement negates using arithmetic instead of with bitmath (such as ours) and either canonicalize NaNs or don’t support denormals. This is actually important because this kind of bitmath on floats is very commonly used as part of algorithms for complex math functions that need to get

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > While I was at it, I also took a stab at finishing up one of the TODOs. I've > attached the patch for review. Comments inline. For those of you following at home, this code is in InstCombiner::WillNotOverflowSignedAdd(), and the first line of the initial comment is: // If one of the

On 1 December 2015 at 13:41, Tim Shen via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > As a simple solution, when see a LLVM IR bitcast, instead of generating > (ISD::BITCAST x), can we generate (exchange_hi_lo (ISD::BITCAST x)) instead? An LLVM bitcast is defined to be equivalent to a store/load pair. Changing that for ISD::BITCAST would be very surprising, and I wouldn't

Hi, I recently came across the following in __floatsidf in compiler-rt: __floatsidf(int a) { ... if (a < 0) { ... a = -a; In the case where a == INT_MIN, is this negation not undefined behaviour? AIUI this function is used for software emulation on targets that have no hardware floating point support. Perhaps there is an in-built assumption

David/All, Just a quick question about NSW/NUW bits, if you've got a second. I noticed you've been doing a little work on this as of late. I have a bit of code that looks like the following: %indvars.iv.next = add nuw nsw i64 %indvars.iv, 1 %2 = add i64 %indvars.iv.next, -1 %tmp = trunc i64 %2 to i32 %cmp = icmp slt i32 %tmp, %0 br i1 %cmp, label %for.body, label

Hi all! I've been tinkering with LLVM's code-base for a few days, hoping to start on one of the ideas mentioned in the "Open Projects" page (I was told 'Improving the current system'/'Miscellaneous Improvements'/5 would be a good start). While I was at it, I also took a stab at finishing up one of the TODOs. I've attached the patch for review. --

Hi As I understand live variable analysis will set the def/kill properties of operands. In that case, is it still needed to set the kill flags when possible during lowering? thanks dz

Ok. That you for clarifying the point for me. I was primed for a regression because this behavior changed over llvm versions and was causing my tests to fail ;). I'm now doing bitcasting to int, xoring with the signbit and bitcasting back. On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > Subtraction is also not a correct implementation of negation, for