search for: smuls

Hi! I'm not sure how to handle intrinsic functions that have non-i32 operands. The target only supports 32-bit registers natively but for some operations, only the lower 16 bits are significant. For example, the SMULS instruction does a 16 x 16 fractional multiply with saturation. I've defined an intrinsic function: int __builtin_opus_smuls(short a, short b); def int_opus_smuls : GCCBuiltin<"__builtin_opus_smuls">,     Intrinsic<[llvm_i32_ty], [llvm_i16_ty, llvm_i16_ty],     [IntrNoMem]...

> 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 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

> wow... Tell me, what cross compiler can I use for ARM if I am working in a i686-Linux machine? As usual - gcc + binutils. > At the same time, how I can simulate it? QEMU ? -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

Hi, I want to add an extra instruction to the Alpha ISA. This is not a new operation; it is just an addition with a lower latency, let's call it fast-add. Could you give me advice on what's an easy and clean approach to this? I am thinking of adding an extra instruction to the LLVM IR to represent this fast-add operation (I want to make the decision of using either the normal addition

wow... Tell me, what cross compiler can I use for ARM if I am working in a i686-Linux machine? At the same time, how I can simulate it? But the way, If I deleted the unknown pseudo-op and change section .rodata definition, I can use my stone age cross compiler. I am just wondering why it works without them. Thanks in advance. On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at

Louis, Upgraded to 4.13 and running "samba-check-db-repl.sh" exits with: "No Samba NT DOMAIN Name found exitting now...: Complete output: > #!/bin/bash -v > > ## > ## Version : 1.0.8 > ## release d.d. : 24-03-2015 > ## Author : L. van Belle > ## E-mail : louis at van-belle.nl > ## Copyright : Free as free can be, copy it, change it if

add object rules so that the division, remainder and friends get really build on sparc, patch from Fabio M. Di Nitto <fabbione@ubuntu.com>. reworked to apply on latest git tree. Signed-off-by: maximilian attems <maks@sternwelten.at> --- Has been since long in the Debian and Ubuntu klibc. diff --git a/klibc/arch/sparc/Makefile.inc b/klibc/arch/sparc/Makefile.inc index

The parts of klibc specific to the sparc architecture. Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> --- commit 1b5c93603ed3460ed1fba9e5d453a6fa54d0ccce tree 7fb0a134b3add408c02b470616d440ad398d86d3 parent 94473ed85b00ec45ff8ee6cac62f60a368ff4534 author H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> Sun, 25 Jun 2006 16:58:47 -0700 committer H. Peter Anvin <hpa at zytor.com> Sun, 25 Jun

Commit-ID: 77c7ccc993d605eb7f6bef511017d28c1bb2d7e7 Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/?p=libs/klibc/klibc.git;a=commit;h=77c7ccc993d605eb7f6bef511017d28c1bb2d7e7 Author: Ben Hutchings <ben at decadent.org.uk> AuthorDate: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 19:21:47 +0100 Committer: Ben Hutchings <ben at decadent.org.uk> CommitDate: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 19:52:24 +0100 [klibc] signal: Move

Seems to relate to kerberos. I cannot "kinit administrator". Returns "kinit cannot contact KDC for realm 'subdom.example.com' while getting initial credentials." "samba-info.sh" script returns 'NT_STATUS_CONNECTION_REFUSED' and that 'ERROR: invalid ip address for dc1.subdom.example.com' (Sorry on my laptop. Difficult to copy & paste

On 05/04/2019 09:37, Simon Pilgrim via llvm-dev wrote: > On 04/04/2019 14:11, Sander De Smalen wrote: >> Proposed change: >> >> ---------------------------- >> >> In this RFC I propose changing the intrinsics for >> llvm.experimental.vector.reduce.fadd and >> llvm.experimental.vector.reduce.fmul (see options A and B). I also >> propose renaming

I have updated the klibc patchset based on feedback received. In particular, the patchset has been reorganized so as not to break git-bisect. Additionally, this updates the patch base to 2.6.17-git12 (d38b69689c349f35502b92e20dafb30c62d49d63) and klibc 1.4.8; the main difference on the klibc side is removal of obsolete code. This is also available as a git tree at: