search for: ssub

...represent this correctly in LLVM IR? In the above case, the carry flag should be set by the SBB because: %eax + carry == 0x100000000 (33 bits) or 0x0 (32 bits) %edx - (%eax + carry) == %edx with Carry set. If I use LLVM IR: %eax2 = ADD i32 %eax1, %carry (%eax2 == 0) [%edx2,%carry] = llvm.ssub.with.overflow.i32 %edx1, %eax2 (carry == 0, but I want it to be 1) So, the problem only occurs with the edge case of %eax == 0xffffffff and carry == 1 Any ideas how I could make this work accurately in LLVM IR ? I could put an if round it: if ((%eax1 == 0xffffffff)) && (%carry1 == 1))...

...? > In the above case, the carry flag should be set by the SBB because: > %eax + carry == 0x100000000 (33 bits) or 0x0 (32 bits) > %edx - (%eax + carry) == %edx with Carry set. > > If I use LLVM IR: > %eax2 = ADD i32 %eax1, %carry (%eax2 == 0) > [%edx2,%carry] = llvm.ssub.with.overflow.i32 %edx1, %eax2 (carry == > 0, but I want it to be 1) > > So, the problem only occurs with the edge case of %eax == 0xffffffff > and carry == 1 > > Any ideas how I could make this work accurately in LLVM IR ? > I could put an if round it: > if ((%eax1 ==...

...############# rm(list = ls()) objects() library(popbio) # Vital rate means and variances, and 'types' for the vrtypes argument in vitalsim # 'names' is not used, but indicates what the vital # rates represent: Sad = adult survival, Scub = cub survival # Syrl = yearling survival, Ssub - subadult survival # mx = number of female offspring per year names = c("Sad", "Scub", "Syrl", "Ssub", "mx") # vital rate names, not used mean = c(0.835, 0.640, 0.670, 0.765, 0.467) # vital rate means var = c(0.213, 0.252, 0.241, 0.133, 0.0405) #v...

...tacksave @llvm.stackrestore @llvm.pcmarker @llvm.readcyclecounter @llvm.bitreverse @llvm.eh.begincatch @llvm.eh.endcatch @llvm.eh.padparam @llvm.stackprotector @llvm.stackprotectorcheck @llvm.objectsize @llvm.donothing Words with dots: @llvm.sadd.with.overflow @llvm.uadd.with.overflow @llvm.ssub.with.overflow @llvm.usub.with.overflow @llvm.smul.with.overflow @llvm.umul.with.overflow @llvm.convert.to.fp16 @llvm.convert.from.fp16 @llvm.eh.typeid.for @llvm.init.trampoline @llvm.adjust.trampoline @llvm.masked.load @llvm.masked.store @llvm.masked.gather @llvm.masked.scatter @llvm.lifetime...

...g. >> > > Right, I think the difference here is "if it was missing" - the test case > itself seems like it could be a reasonable one (are there other tests of > the same compiler-rt functionality? (I assume the compiler-rt functionality > is the implementation of sadd/ssub?)) > No, that's the point - sadd/ssub is handled solely in Clang/LLVM, and UBSan runtime is only responsible for reporting an already-detected issue. From this POV you can actually consider majority of UBSan lit tests "end-to-end": they check that driver understands -fsanitize= fl...

Hi, I am looking to decompile x86 ASM to LLVM IR. The original C is this: int test61 ( unsigned value ) { int ret; if (value < 1) ret = 0x40; else ret = 0x61; return ret; } It compiles with GCC -O2 to (rather cleverly removing any branches): 0000000000000000 <test61>: 0: 83 ff 01 cmp $0x1,%edi 3:

...y added it, if it was missing. > Right, I think the difference here is "if it was missing" - the test case itself seems like it could be a reasonable one (are there other tests of the same compiler-rt functionality? (I assume the compiler-rt functionality is the implementation of sadd/ssub?)) > In this case, a change to Clang > instrumentation (arguments passed to UBSan runtime callbacks) improved the > user-facing part of the tool, and compiler-rt test suite is a good place to > verify that. > This seems like the problematic part - changes to LLVM improve the user-...

Hello, Maybe interesting for other people googling the web: I have Schedule+ 7.0 working under Wine 20050310 (comes with Debian Sarge). This program is bundeled with all versions of Microsoft Office, (mine comes from Office95) but most of the time hidden on the CD. It can be used as a shared calendar. I copied the directory "Schedule" directly, no setup program. Important is, that you

Hi all, I've got a basic question regarding package documentation and rd.sty. I wrote my first own package, and now I would like to place the documentation into the appendix of another LaTex document. Seemingly I cannot simply \usepackage{Rd}, as this will modify the page-settings of my document. Is there a minimum style file which will just define the environments and commands needed for

...>> Right, I think the difference here is "if it was missing" - the test case >> itself seems like it could be a reasonable one (are there other tests of >> the same compiler-rt functionality? (I assume the compiler-rt functionality >> is the implementation of sadd/ssub?)) >> >> >>> In this case, a change to Clang >>> instrumentation (arguments passed to UBSan runtime callbacks) improved >>> the user-facing part of the tool, and compiler-rt test suite is a good >>> place to verify that. >>> >> >>...

...g. >> > > Right, I think the difference here is "if it was missing" - the test case > itself seems like it could be a reasonable one (are there other tests of > the same compiler-rt functionality? (I assume the compiler-rt functionality > is the implementation of sadd/ssub?)) > > >> In this case, a change to Clang >> instrumentation (arguments passed to UBSan runtime callbacks) improved >> the user-facing part of the tool, and compiler-rt test suite is a good >> place to verify that. >> > > This seems like the problematic par...

...ght, I think the difference here is "if it was missing" - the test >>> case itself seems like it could be a reasonable one (are there other tests >>> of the same compiler-rt functionality? (I assume the compiler-rt >>> functionality is the implementation of sadd/ssub?)) >>> >>> >>>> In this case, a change to Clang >>>> instrumentation (arguments passed to UBSan runtime callbacks) improved >>>> the user-facing part of the tool, and compiler-rt test suite is a good >>>> place to verify that. >&g...

...the difference here is "if it was missing" - the test >>>> case itself seems like it could be a reasonable one (are there other tests >>>> of the same compiler-rt functionality? (I assume the compiler-rt >>>> functionality is the implementation of sadd/ssub?)) >>>> >>>> >>>>> In this case, a change to Clang >>>>> instrumentation (arguments passed to UBSan runtime callbacks) improved >>>>> the user-facing part of the tool, and compiler-rt test suite is a good >>>>> plac...

...nce here is "if it was missing" - the test >>>>> case itself seems like it could be a reasonable one (are there other tests >>>>> of the same compiler-rt functionality? (I assume the compiler-rt >>>>> functionality is the implementation of sadd/ssub?)) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> In this case, a change to Clang >>>>>> instrumentation (arguments passed to UBSan runtime callbacks) >>>>>> improved the user-facing part of the tool, and compiler-rt test suite is a >>&g...

...ed it, if it was missing. > > Right, I think the difference here is "if it was missing" - the test case itself seems like it could be a reasonable one (are there other tests of the same compiler-rt functionality? (I assume the compiler-rt functionality is the implementation of sadd/ssub?)) > > In this case, a change to Clang > instrumentation (arguments passed to UBSan runtime callbacks) improved the user-facing part of the tool, and compiler-rt test suite is a good place to verify that. > > This seems like the problematic part - changes to LLVM improve the user-...

..."if it was missing" - the test >>>>>> case itself seems like it could be a reasonable one (are there other tests >>>>>> of the same compiler-rt functionality? (I assume the compiler-rt >>>>>> functionality is the implementation of sadd/ssub?)) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> In this case, a change to Clang >>>>>>> instrumentation (arguments passed to UBSan runtime callbacks) >>>>>>> improved the user-facing part of the tool, and compiler-rt test s...

..."if it was missing" - the test >>>>>> case itself seems like it could be a reasonable one (are there other tests >>>>>> of the same compiler-rt functionality? (I assume the compiler-rt >>>>>> functionality is the implementation of sadd/ssub?)) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> In this case, a change to Clang >>>>>>> instrumentation (arguments passed to UBSan runtime callbacks) >>>>>>> improved the user-facing part of the tool, and compiler-rt test s...

...was missing" - the test >>>>>>> case itself seems like it could be a reasonable one (are there other tests >>>>>>> of the same compiler-rt functionality? (I assume the compiler-rt >>>>>>> functionality is the implementation of sadd/ssub?)) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In this case, a change to Clang >>>>>>>> instrumentation (arguments passed to UBSan runtime callbacks) >>>>>>>> improved the user-facing part of the tool, an...

...f it was missing. >> >> Right, I think the difference here is "if it was missing" - the test case itself seems like it could be a reasonable one (are there other tests of the same compiler-rt functionality? (I assume the compiler-rt functionality is the implementation of sadd/ssub?)) >> >> In this case, a change to Clang >> instrumentation (arguments passed to UBSan runtime callbacks) improved the user-facing part of the tool, and compiler-rt test suite is a good place to verify that. >> >> This seems like the problematic part - changes to LL...

...quot; - the >>>>>>>> test case itself seems like it could be a reasonable one (are there other >>>>>>>> tests of the same compiler-rt functionality? (I assume the compiler-rt >>>>>>>> functionality is the implementation of sadd/ssub?)) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In this case, a change to Clang >>>>>>>>> instrumentation (arguments passed to UBSan runtime callbacks) >>>>>>>>> improved the user-facing...