search for: swlin

...ote: possible intended match here vsubsd %xmm0, %xmm3, %xmm0 ^ Does anyone have a suggestions on what FOO should be? In my current patch it's currently LABEL, but Eli. B. suggested BOUNDARY Any opinions or other suggestions? Thanks, Stephen On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Stephen Lin <swlin at post.harvard.edu> wrote: > It's just short for BOUNDARY. I think BOUNDARY is too long :D > I prefer LABEL though. I can send this to the dev list and ask for > opinions there. > Stephen > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrot...

Hi, I'm not planning on doing this, but I noticed that the documentation in WritingAnLLVMPass.rst doesn't seem to specify whether or not it's legal for a function pass to inspect (and thus depend upon the contents of) other functions and I'm curious if this is an oversight or by design: To be explicit, ``FunctionPass`` subclasses are not allowed to: #. Modify a

> This is not true. The mathematically correct result for sqrt might not be a representable value in floating point, so rounding may occur between the two steps. In that case, pow2(sqrt(x)) != x. > > --Owen I think what Christoph is saying is that x will always be at least as accurate as pow2(sqrt(x)), so it's only unsafe in so far as one's code is actually depending on an

On 22 November 2013 19:11, Stephen Lin <swlin at post.harvard.edu> wrote: > Nadav and Arnold, > > What is the current status of vectorization pragmas? Do you think that's > something I might be able to take on if you two are busy with other things? > Hi Stephen, I was planing on having a look at that this month, but if...

On 3 Jul 2013, at 23:05, Stephen Lin <swlin at post.harvard.edu> wrote: > Does anyone know if there's a defined policy about this, either way? > If so, I think it ought to be noted in the docs, for consistency. The prohibition exists, at least in part, because in theory it would be nice to be able to run passes in parallel. I...

On Apr 23, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Stephen Lin <swlin at post.harvard.edu> wrote: >> This is not true. The mathematically correct result for sqrt might not be a representable value in floating point, so rounding may occur between the two steps. In that case, pow2(sqrt(x)) != x. > > I think what Christoph is saying is that x will alw...

On Jul 31, 2013 10:16 AM, "Stephen Lin" <swlin at post.harvard.edu> wrote: > > Oh, well, I don't actually have any objection to the patch (I'm not > sure if Oscar does) or work in this direction. (So apologies for > hijacking, it's just I wanted to back up the sentiment that Oscar > expressed initially.) > >...

...ense from a design standpoint, that's one thing, but saying we shouldn't take it because of licensing issues with MFC or because it is harmful to be partially (but not fully) compatible with MSVC seems just weird to me. > > -Chris > > On Jul 31, 2013, at 9:04 AM, Stephen Lin <swlin at post.harvard.edu> wrote: > >>> Quite the contrary, knowing that Clang's C++ ABI is completely >>> incompatible with MS is a maintenance *simplification*. >> >> Yes, for example, as explained by Bjarne once, incompatible name >> mangling schemes for A...

On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:45 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 3 Jul 2013, at 23:05, Stephen Lin <swlin at post.harvard.edu> wrote: > >> Does anyone know if there's a defined policy about this, either way? >> If so, I think it ought to be noted in the docs, for consistency. > > The prohibition exists, at least in part, because in theory it would be nice to be able to run p...

...e faster than FMul + FAdd (which usually means you have hardware support of the operation.). You can look at in-tree target implementations as an example. Please let me know if there are any objections before tomorrow morning. Stephen ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stephen Lin <swlin at post.harvard.edu> Date: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:25 PM Subject: [PATCH] Resolve issues with fmuladd intrinsic handling across multiple backends To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu Hi, While working on another patch, I discovered multiple related issues with fmuladd intrinsic handling which I beli...

On Apr 24, 2013, at 12:36 AM, Stephen Lin <swlin at post.harvard.edu> wrote: > By the way, I definitely believe you that this isn't a 100% safe > optimization, but I'm curious, is this really guaranteed here that c > will not be a non-zero finite value? I was under the impression that > FPU state could lead to slightly dif...

Hi Rafael, I think you saw my other e-mail, but just in case you haven't, do you have any thoughts about making this an option that could be easily disabled on the command line without maintaing a patch to lit? I think it would help out-of-tree target maintainers to transition, since I'm sure there will be a lot of similarly broken tests to fix. Stephen On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 8:56 PM,

> I just bought an 11" mac air for when I'm travelling or somewhere else that > is not at work and wanted to be able to do llvm work on it. > > I got the the 8 gig version but with a 128 gig flash drive because it seemed > to be enough but if I had to create another partition for llvm, then maybe I > should get the 256 gig version. > > It's not really a work

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Stephen Lin <swlin at post.harvard.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed that ConstantFP::get automatically returns the appropriately > types Constant depending on the LLVM type passed in (i.e. if called > with a vector, it returns a splat vector with the given constant). > > Is there any simple way...

Nadav and Arnold, What is the current status of vectorization pragmas? Do you think that's something I might be able to take on if you two are busy with other things? Stephen On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > Its a good point. We will need to document the semantics of the > vectorization pragma well. > > On Nov 14, 2013, at

On 07/18/2013 04:39 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:29 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> I built llvm and clang on my home mac which has just a normal mac os file >> system and everything seem to build just fine. >> >> Are there any requirements for needing linux style upper/lowercase file >> systems for llvm/clang tool

Its a good point. We will need to document the semantics of the vectorization pragma well. On Nov 14, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Ralf Karrenberg <Chareos at gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Nadav, > > On 14/11/13 17:38, Nadav Rotem wrote: >> Sure. Vectorization of stores is done by loading the current value from memory, blending the new value and saving it back to memory. > > Just a

Hi Stephen, On 04/07/13 20:21, Stephen Lin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:45 AM, David Chisnall > <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> On 3 Jul 2013, at 23:05, Stephen Lin <swlin at post.harvard.edu> wrote: >> >>> Does anyone know if there's a defined policy about this, either way? >>> If so, I think it ought to be noted in the docs, for consistency. >> >> The prohibition exists, at least in part, because in theory it would be nice...

Hi, Apologies if this has been proposed before; I couldn't find anything in basic searching. I've been writing tests lately and noticed that the error messages are not very helpful in cases where a check is incorrect but matches something that occurs in a later block: the checker continues assuming that the matched line is correct (no matter how much farther ahead it occurs) and then

On 04/23/2013 10:50 PM, Owen Anderson wrote: > > On Apr 23, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Stephen Lin <swlin at post.harvard.edu> wrote: > >>> This is not true. The mathematically correct result for sqrt might not be a representable value in floating point, so rounding may occur between the two steps. In that case, pow2(sqrt(x)) != x. >> >> I think what Christoph is saying is...