search for: truncs

Thank you for your thoughts, Hal. More information below... On Sep 13, 2017, at 5:43 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: On 09/13/2017 01:01 PM, Daniel Neilson via llvm-dev wrote: … snip For example, the following IR will produce different sets of IV users if either: i) The order of the PHI nodes in the %loop block are reordered; or ii) The

On Sep 14, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: On 09/14/2017 10:43 AM, Daniel Neilson wrote: Thank you for your thoughts, Hal. More information below... On Sep 13, 2017, at 5:43 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: On 09/13/2017 01:01 PM, Daniel Neilson via llvm-dev wrote: … snip For

Hello, >From [1], trunc does not seems to have a nsw/nuw attribute. Is it possible to have that? Or do we have that and it is not up-to-date? The definition would be: If the nuw keyword is present, the result value of the trunc is a poison value if the truncated high order bits are non-zero. If the nsw keyword is present, the result value of the trunc is a poison value if the truncated high

Hi, > Hi Alexandre, > > LLVM currently doesn't have trunc nsw/nuw, no. > Which frontend would emit such instructions? Any application in mind? > Just asking because if no frontend could emit those, then the motivation to > add nsw/nuw support to trunc would be very low I guess. I think the clang frontend could use that to allow better static analysis of integer overflows on

Hi all, I’ve most recently been grappling with a difficult to reproduce bug. I’ve traced the source of the difficulty in reproduction to the IVUsers analysis pass that is used by Loop Strength Reduction. Specifically, the IVUsers pass’s output is very sensitive to both the use list ordering of the instructions that it is looking at and the ordering of the Phi nodes in the header block of the loop

On 09/14/2017 10:31 PM, Daniel Neilson wrote: > > >> On Sep 14, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov >> <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote: >> >> >> On 09/14/2017 10:43 AM, Daniel Neilson wrote: >>> Thank you for your thoughts, Hal. More information below... >>> >>>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 5:43 PM, Hal Finkel

Dear all, I'm currently use R v0.99 on Windows 98 Second Edition. I have a question on some simple calculations. I wonder that I've done something wrong with the calculation. Here is the imput commands: > a <- 25.01 > b <- 56.08 > a.trunc <- trunc(a) > b.trunc <- trunc(b) > a.tail <- a - a.trunc > b.tail <- b - b.trunc > a.trunc [1] 25 >

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 07/04/2017 01:41 AM, Dr.-Ing. Christoph Cullmann via llvm-dev wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Hi Alexandre, >>> >>> LLVM currently doesn't have trunc nsw/nuw, no. >>> Which frontend would emit such instructions? Any application in mind?

I am compiling the following code for the MIPS architecture: unsigned char trunc(float f) { return (unsigned char) f; } and it produces the following assembly (directives removed for convenience: trunc: trunc.w.s $f0, $f12 mfc1 $2, $f0 jr $ra nop However, this does not seem to produce the correct output for negative numbers. When I run the following code, I get

On 07/05/2017 03:10 PM, Alexandre Isoard wrote: > Ah, ok. I read it wrong. In *neither* case it is UB. > > Hum, can an implementation define it as UB? :-) Nope :-) The only case I've thought of where we could add these for C++ would be on conversions to (most) enums (because they used signed underlying types and the out-of-bounds mapping won't generally be one of the allowed

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Rackover, Zvi <zvi.rackover at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Sanjay, > > > > I agree we should also discuss **if** this canonicalization is beneficial. > > For starters, do we have a concrete case where we would benefit from > canonicalizing shuffles <-> truncates in LLVM IR? > > IMO, we should not count benefits for codegen

Hi, Even if there are no ways in which a *frontend* can produce nsw truncs, it may still be useful to have if optimization passes can usefully attach nsw to truncates (after proving the truncates don't "overflow"). For instance in %a = ashr i64 %v, i32 33 %t = trunc %a to i32 the trunc can be marked nsw. However, the burden of proof here is to show t...

>>>>> Ji?? Moravec >>>>> on Wed, 7 Feb 2024 10:23:15 +1300 writes: > This is my first time working with dates, so if the answer is "Duh, work > with POSIXt", please ignore it. > Why is not `round.Date` and `trunc.Date` "implemented" for `Date`? > Is this because `Date` is (mostly) a virtual class setup for a

According to 6.3.1.3/3 of the C standard (I didn't check C++): "3 Otherwise, the new type is signed and the value cannot be represented in it; either the result is implementation-defined or an implementation-defined signal is raised." I *think* that means that IF a signal is raised then the signal raised could be one that you can't guarantee to be able to return from

We use InstCombiner::ShouldChangeType() to prevent transforms to illegal integer types, but I'm not sure how that would apply to vector types. Ie, let's say v256 is a legal type in your example. DataLayout doesn't appear to specify what configurations of a 256-bit vector are legal, so I don't think we can currently use that to say v2i128 should be treated differently than v16i16.

Full_Name: Grischa T?dt Version: 2.1.1 OS: windows XP Submission from: (NULL) (192.108.25.32) I have a strange behaviour in R, looks like type conversions are messed up. To reproduce: expected: > typeof(3) [1] "double" > as.integer(3) [1] 3 !!!! strange: > typeof((0.3/0.1)) [1] "double" > as.integer((0.3/0.1)) [1] 2 also for trunc: >trunc(c(5,7))

> On 8 Feb 2024, at 15:15, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: > >>>>>> Ji?? Moravec >>>>>> on Wed, 7 Feb 2024 10:23:15 +1300 writes: > >> This is my first time working with dates, so if the answer is "Duh, work >> with POSIXt", please ignore it. > >> Why is not `round.Date` and

Hello. I would like to know if there exists in R a function like trunc but where i can choose how many decimal places can I stay with in the number I have (sort of the same as the trunc function in excel). I would like, for example if I have the number 0.974678 and I choose to stay with 3 decimal places to have as ouput 0.974. Thank you Felipe Parra [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hello, i need to fold constants, i found that a function ConstantFoldConstantExpression could be used, however I am not able to make it fold anything. Could you please give me some advice, what I am doing wrong? My code looks something like this: //data layout is obtained from clang-generated code for triple arm-none-linux-gnueabi with added v32:32:32 const char* const TARGET_DATA_LAYOUT =

?s 14:36 de 08/02/2024, Olivier Benz via R-devel escreveu: >> On 8 Feb 2024, at 15:15, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: >> >>>>>>> Ji?? Moravec >>>>>>> on Wed, 7 Feb 2024 10:23:15 +1300 writes: >> >>> This is my first time working with dates, so if the answer is "Duh, work >>> with