search for: simplifcation

...t;> because of the arithmetic simplifications. I was asking the question in the context of intrinsics vs. a first-class complex type. Matching things like hardware support for complex multiply is doable with either mechanism. Your statement made it sound like intrinsics were needed to *avoid* simplifcations in order to match them to hardware instructions and that a first-class complex type (using "normal" LLVM arithmetic instructions) would not be matchable to some hardware instructions. I was curious about what those cases would be. -David

...t;> because of the arithmetic simplifications. I was asking the question in the context of intrinsics vs. a first-class complex type. Matching things like hardware support for complex multiply is doable with either mechanism. Your statement made it sound like intrinsics were needed to *avoid* simplifcations in order to match them to hardware instructions and that a first-class complex type (using "normal" LLVM arithmetic instructions) would not be matchable to some hardware instructions. I was curious about what those cases would be. -David

Dear all, perhaps I am using princomp.formula and prcomp.formula in a way that is not documented to work, but then the documentation just says: formula: a formula with no response variable. Thus, to avoid a lot of typing, it would be nice if one could use '.' and '-' in the formula, e.g. > library(DAAG) > res <- prcomp(~ . - case - site - Pop - sex, possum)

Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > Some architectures have instructions that assist with complex > arithmetic. Without intrinsics it may be hard to use such > instructions especially because of the arithmetic simplifications. > Perhaps, depending on TTI, those intrinsics could be expanded into the > explicit arithmetic? Can you provide

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Timothy Mattausch Creech" <tcreech at umd.edu> > To: "Sebastian Dreßler" <dressler at zib.de> > Cc: "Aparna Kotha" <akotha at umd.edu>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 11:32:49 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] AESOP autoparallelizing compiler > > Hi Sebastian, > Sure!

Hi Sebastian, Sure! The bulk of LMDA was written by Aparna Kotha (CCd). It computes dependences between all instructions, computes the resulting direction vectors in the function, then associates them all with loops. At a high level, the dependence analysis consults with AliasAnalysis, and ScalarEvolution before resorting to attempting to understand the effective affine expressions and