search for: tiebreaker

...this becomes: (((b*e)*a)*c)*d Now b*e can be CSE’d later! Magic! This could probably be enhanced to allow for multiple operations to be CSE’d, e.g. by doing something like ((b*e)*(a*c))*d, but that would change the canonicalization regime and make it a more invasive change, I think. Also, as a tiebreaker, the current one I’m using is the “pair which has the lowest max rank of the two operands”, which makes sense because in this example, “a*b” is the first operation in the chain, so we want to pick the duplicates which are also higher up in the program vs closer to the leaf. No other tiebreaker I tr...

...ums that are assumed to be >> available in other parts of the x86 codegen. > > Try AddedComplexity = n to increase "goodness" of the pattern. It's a > bit of a hack. > >> >> >> So given two patterns that match the same thing, what's the >> tiebreaker? >> I thought it was order in the .td file but that doesn't appear to be >> the >> case. I put my pattern first and it isn't selected. I change the >> other >> pattern slightly so it won't match anything and then my pattern gets >> used (so I know m...

...n DAG to prefer my pattern over another that already exists. I can't easily just disable that other pattern because it generates Machine Instruction opcode enums that are assumed to be available in other parts of the x86 codegen. So given two patterns that match the same thing, what's the tiebreaker? I thought it was order in the .td file but that doesn't appear to be the case. I put my pattern first and it isn't selected. I change the other pattern slightly so it won't match anything and then my pattern gets used (so I know my pattern is valid). Also, I really wanted to expres...

Hi everybody does anyone know how I can run ANOVA post-hoc tests using R commander or R in general? Thank you Dr. Iasonas Lamprianou

On Sep 23, 2008, at 11:26 AM, David Greene wrote: > Are there any examples of using tablegen to generate multiple machine > instructions from a single pattern? Or do these cases always have > to be > manually expanded? PPC has a bunch of examples, for example: // Arbitrary immediate support. Implement in terms of LIS/ORI. def : Pat<(i32 imm:$imm), (ORI (LIS (HI16

Are there any examples of using tablegen to generate multiple machine instructions from a single pattern? Or do these cases always have to be manually expanded? -Dave

Dear R user, I am new with split-plot designs and I have problems with multiple comparisons. This data correspond to an split-plot experiment with two replications (bloque).(Hoshmand, 2006 pp 138). Briefly, the whole-plot factor is Nitrogen concentration ("nitrogeno") and the subplot factor is the variety of corn ("hibrido"). The aim is to determine if major differences

...ates Machine Instruction opcode enums that are assumed to be > available in other parts of the x86 codegen. Try AddedComplexity = n to increase "goodness" of the pattern. It's a bit of a hack. > > > So given two patterns that match the same thing, what's the > tiebreaker? > I thought it was order in the .td file but that doesn't appear to be > the > case. I put my pattern first and it isn't selected. I change the > other > pattern slightly so it won't match anything and then my pattern gets > used (so I know my pattern is valid)....

Hi all, Many of us find ourselves spending a great chunk of time comparing LLVM IR dumps at various stages of compilation pipeline or after a given optimization pass. Said process can be extremely laborious, and this is especially true when comparing shaders or compute modules. Important semantic differences are often difficult to spot because of the irregular naming and ordering of instructions.