search for: subcarriers

Dear all, a couple of new generic DAG nodes ISD::ADCARRY and ISD::SUBCARRY were recently introduced in https://reviews.llvm.org/D29872 These nodes have three inputs and two outputs, the second output being the "carry". I understand that carry is well defined for ADDCARRY but my question is about SUBCARRY. Some architectures set the "carry" of a "x - y" subtraction

These opcodes have been deprecated about a year ago, but still in use in various backend. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47422 I would like to change the behavior of the backend to not enable the use of these opcodes by default. The opcode remains usable by any backend that wish to use them, but that should limit the situation where newer backend just use them as they are enabled by default. This

For targets where ADDCARRY and SUBCARRY are legal, would it make sense to expand ADDC/UADDO/ADDE/etc. into ADDCARRY (and same for sub)? Are there plans to deprecate UADDO/USUBO in favor of ADDCARRY/SUBCARRY? -Krzysztof On 5/30/2018 11:57 AM, Amaury Séchet via llvm-dev wrote: > These opcodes have been deprecated about a year ago, but still in use in > various backend. > > In

On 5/30/2018 10:29 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev wrote: > For targets where ADDCARRY and SUBCARRY are legal, would it make sense > to expand ADDC/UADDO/ADDE/etc. into ADDCARRY (and same for sub)? SelectionDAG will never generate ADDC/ADDE on targets where they aren't legal.  Targets which custom-lower ADDCARRY generally also custom-lower UADDO; not sure what sort of expansion

On 5/30/2018 1:16 PM, Friedman, Eli wrote: > On 5/30/2018 10:29 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev wrote: >> For targets where ADDCARRY and SUBCARRY are legal, would it make sense >> to expand ADDC/UADDO/ADDE/etc. into ADDCARRY (and same for sub)? > > SelectionDAG will never generate ADDC/ADDE on targets where they aren't > legal.  Targets which custom-lower

Hi all, I have a script that allocates an ADSL(1500K/256K) bandwidth to three users. My idea is to allow each user having a guarentee rate, while each one is allowed to burst to the max rate while no one is using the bandwidth. I use imq0 for uplink (for some mobility reason) and imq1 for downlink. Everything works smoothly except for VoIP traffic. There are three VoIP phones attached to a

On 5/30/2018 11:28 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek wrote: > On 5/30/2018 1:16 PM, Friedman, Eli wrote: >> On 5/30/2018 10:29 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev wrote: >>> For targets where ADDCARRY and SUBCARRY are legal, would it make >>> sense to expand ADDC/UADDO/ADDE/etc. into ADDCARRY (and same for sub)? >> >> SelectionDAG will never generate ADDC/ADDE on

It seems it was only locking up in the context of nouveau_hw_save_vga_fonts, when it actually did something (because the console wasn't already in graphics mode). Signed-off-by: Francisco Jerez <currojerez at riseup.net> --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_hw.c | 9 +++++++++ 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_hw.c

This patch series adds TV-out modesetting support to the KMS implementation. I've tried to test it on all the hardware I've got at hand (that is nv11, nv17, nv34, nv35, nv40, nv4b) with every possible output combination; I believe it has reached a mergeable state, however it depends on some commits from drm-next that haven't got into Linus' tree yet, if you agree to merge this