search for: ugee

Below is the output. Thanks for the help. > Sys.getenv() BASH_FUNC_module() () { eval `/cm/local/apps/environment-modules/3.2.10/Modules/$MODULE_VERSION/bin/modulecmd bash $*` } COLUMNS 152 CPATH /cm/shared/apps/uge/8.2.1/include CVS_RSH ssh DISPLAY localhost:10.0 EDITOR

...ened URL ================================================== downloaded 54 Kb * installing *source* package ?gee? ... ** libs gfortran -fpic -O2 -g -c dgedi.f -o dgedi.o gfortran -fpic -O2 -g -c dgefa.f -o dgefa.o gcc -I/usr/lib64/R/include -I/usr/local/include -fpic -O3 -g -std=gnu99 -c ugee.c -o ugee.o gcc -shared -Bdirect,--hash-stype=both,-Wl,-O1 -o gee.so dgedi.o dgefa.o ugee.o -lblas -lgfortran -lm -lgfortran -lm -L/usr/lib64/R/lib -lR /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lblas collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make: *** [gee.so] Error 1 ERROR: compilation failed for package ?gee? * removi...

...urce packages from CRAN using install.packages(). Below is a typical installation output: * installing *source* package ?gee? ... ** libs gfortran -fpic -O3 -pipe -g -c dgedi.f -o dgedi.o gfortran -fpic -O3 -pipe -g -c dgefa.f -o dgefa.o gcc -std=gnu99 -I/usr/share/R/include -fpic -O3 -pipe -g -c ugee.c -o ugee.o gcc -std=gnu99 -shared -o gee.so dgedi.o dgefa.o ugee.o -lblas -lgfortran -lm -lquadmath -lgfortran -lm -lquadmath -L/usr/lib64/R/lib -lR /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lquadmath collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make: *** [gee.so] Error 1 ERROR: compilation failed for package ?gee? * rem...

Hello Everyone, After trying several ways to compile R 3.2.2 without luck, I?m reaching out for help. The ?make check? does not hanges for some reason and when trying to install a package it cannot list the download sites (see below). What could be the problem? ./configure --enable-R-shlib --enable-BLAS-shlib hostname = test uname -m = x86_64 uname -r = 2.6.32-573.7.1.el6.x86_64 uname -s =

> there is no such information. You can still consider every type to have values > in, say, T = [-2^31; 2^31-1]. Probably you are trying to deduce an interval of > possible values for each register. You will need to allow intervals to wrap > around the end of T since (eg) the basic "add" operator in LLVM uses modulo > arithmetic, i.e. if you add 1 to 2^31-1 you get

Hi, I use R 2.0.1 at WinXP. I ran into the following problem when using barchart() and would like to ask if there is a solution for it other than using fix(). My data is: >> class(b) > [1] "data.frame" >> unclass(b) > $uint > [1] 84 42 71 82 80 123 13 1 15 77 61 56 62 27 100 87 110 191 71 > [20] 3 48 144 101 115 161 52 164 105 154 266 93

Hi, I am looking at some code that does address comparisons to check whether a given pointer is within a certain memory range. For example: if (0xff00 <= &a[x] && &a[x] < 0xffff) This results in IR like: %2 = getelementptr inbounds [100 x i32], [100 x i32]* @a, i32 0, i32 %0, !dbg !9 %3 = icmp uge i32* %2, inttoptr (i32 65280 to i32*), !dbg !10 %4 = icmp ult i32* %2,

After writing a simple FPRange, I've hit a stumbling block. I don't know what LLVM code should be extended to use it. I was initially thinking of extending LazyValueInfo, but it appears to be used for passes that don’t address the case that I need for Julia. I’m now wondering if I’m better off extending SimplifyFCmpInst to handle the few cases in question instead of trying to be more

I've been doing some digging in this area (scev, wrapping arithmetic), learning as much as I can, and have reached a point where I'm fairly confused about the semantics of nuw in scalar evolution expressions. Consider the following program: define void @foo(i32 %begin) { entry: br label %loop loop: %idx = phi i32 [ %begin, %entry ], [ %idx.dec, %loop ] %idx.dec = sub nuw i32

I've been playing around with LLVM to write a backend for a rather "simple" (co-)processor. Assume that only three arithmetic instructions exist: ADD mod N, SUB mod N and MUL mod N. The modulus N is programmable and stored in a register. No ordinary arithmetic instructions are available. The word size is 256-bit. In other words, the following function, b + c mod N, corresponds to

Hello, I was looking at the following test case which is very relevant in imaging applications. int sad(unsigned char *pix1, unsigned char *pix2) { int sum = 0; for( int x = 0; x < 16; x++ ) { sum += abs( pix1[x] - pix2[x] ); } return sum; } The llvm IR generated after all the IR

Hi, I have some IR module from random generation (mostly ineffective instructions). It has a function with void return, and two function arguments where one is a reference. Therefore, I expect every instruction not altering the value at the 2nd arguments address should be ineffective. Here is the function definition (see below for full ll): define void @_Z27entityMainDataInputCallbackdRd(double

Hi, Using llvm-stress, I got a crash after Post-RA pseudo expansion, with machine verifier. A 128 bit register %vreg233:subreg_l32<def,read-undef> = LLCRMux %vreg119; GR128Bit:%vreg233 GRX32Bit:%vreg119 gets spilled: %vreg265:subreg_l32<def,read-undef> = LLCRMux %vreg119; GR128Bit:%vreg265 GRX32Bit:%vreg119 ST128 %vreg265, <fi#10>, 0, %noreg;

Hi, My personal opinion: Just to be sure I understand what you're considering: you want to write a backend that will produce optimized machine code for a device with modular arithmetic instructions (not simulate such a device on a standard CPU)? In which case, won't the same assumptions that are embodied in the transformations for the case of unsigned 2's complement arithmetic (in

...lling *source* package ‘gee’ ... ** package ‘gee’ successfully unpacked and MD5 sums checked ** libs gfortran -fpic -g -O2 -c dgedi.f -o dgedi.o gfortran -fpic -g -O2 -c dgefa.f -o dgefa.o gcc -std=gnu99 -I/ebio/abt6/jmao/R/R-2.15.0/include -DNDEBUG -I/usr/local/include -fpic -g -O2 -c ugee.c -o ugee.o gcc -std=gnu99 -shared -L/usr/local/lib64 -o gee.so dgedi.o dgefa.o ugee.o -L/ebio/abt6/jmao/R/R-2.15.0/lib -lRblas -lgfortran -lm -lgfortran -lm installing to /ebio/abt6/jmao/R/Rpacks/gee/libs ** R ** preparing package for lazy loading ** help *** installing help indices ** building pa...

> We are permitted to turn 'sub nsw i32 %x, 1' into 'add nsw i32 %x, -1' nsw also has the same problem: sub nsw int_min, int_min is 0 but add nsw int_min, (-int_min) is poison -- Sanjoy

I am having a little trouble with the fcmp one instruction on doubles only. For ordered comparisons, the LLVM manual states that true should be returned iff neither operands is QNAN. ( http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#i_fcmp) If I do fcmp one which includes one or both operands as a NaN, the result is expected to be 0 then. If I run the bitcode with lli (JIT off), no problem. If I use the

Maybe we can have two versions of the intrinsic function, "ordered" and "unordered", just like fcmp has [1]. Would that work ? [1] - http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#fcmp-instruction On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:14 AM, "Schoedel, Kevin P" <kevin.p.schoedel at intel.com> wrote: > At Monday, December 17, 2012 2:05 PM, Nadav Rotem [mailto:nrotem at apple.com]

Thanks for your insightful suggestions. Yes, I am programming for a real device that does modular arithmetic (and only modular arithmetic). The modulus N is fixed during a single launch of a program. One way I could also come up with is to simply use add i256 %a, %b to represent a + b mod n, and let LLVM passes to reason about possible optimizations. However these are not semantically identical

At Monday, December 17, 2012 2:05 PM, Nadav Rotem [mailto:nrotem at apple.com] wrote: >This part worries me. The new min/max intrinsics will only be useful if we could pattern match cmp/select into them. Yes, that's the obvious alternative. I don't think we have any strong opinion either way, and fcmp/select is certainly easier to implement. -- Kevin Schoedel, Software Developer,