search for: unmerges

...they get folded away in the combiner. IIRC Matt sees this happening with division, while I am seeing something similar with unmerge. To my particular problem: due to the nature of the architecture I'm working with, we have pretty strict legalization rules. One example is that we only allow unmerges from 64 to 32 bit. Unmerges of 32-bit or less get lowered to bit-arithmetic. However if we would do the same for anything bigger than 64-bit, the legalization of the resulting bit arithmetic would introduce illegal unmerges again, which then cause an endless loop in the legalizer. So our rules...

Dear "R Gurus", I am having two dummy csv data sets A and B containing 19 and 15 cases/observations respectively. From the two data set 13 cases are intersection. From one of the two (any) data set, How do I then retrieve the unmerged data ? let's take A for example, six cases must appear in our results. See the R codes below. Please assist. Looking forward to hearing

Hi, I’m trying to handle some vector operations with splitting/scalarization and keep running into similar sorts of issues which are making me question the intended function of the various legalization operations (particularly G_MERGE_VALUES/G_UNMERGE_VALUES, but also G_EXTRACT/G_INSERT and conversion instructions) and what the contract between the legalizer and selector actually is. For scalar

Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: > Personally, I’m hugely in favor of moving llvm’s source hosting to github at > some point, despite the fact that I continue to dislike git as a tool and > consider monotonicly increasing version numbers to be hugely beneficial. For whatever it's worth, our projects define a `buildnum` git alias: alias.buildnum=!sh -c "git rev-list --all |

Hello, I am attempting to merge 8 different data sets into a "grand merge" data set; all their variable names are common except for the the gas measured. However, when I did a quick stat summary comparison of merged data with unmerged data, it turned out that R mysteriously duplicated thousands of values in the merged set and I have no idea why. I've not had this problem with merge

> On May 31, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Bill Kelly via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: >> Personally, I’m hugely in favor of moving llvm’s source hosting to github at >> some point, despite the fact that I continue to dislike git as a tool and >> consider monotonicly increasing version numbers to be hugely beneficial. >

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Mehdi > Amini via llvm-dev > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 2:38 PM > To: Bill Kelly > Cc: LLVM Dev; Clang Dev; LLDB Dev > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] GitHub anyone? > > > > On May 31, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Bill Kelly via llvm-dev <llvm- > dev at lists.llvm.org>

Duncan, I would like to merge r168035, r168181 and r168291 as one reassociate changeset: Have you heard from Chris regarding r168291? http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/156364.html Pawel > On 20/11/12 05:57, Chris Lattner wrote: >> Fwiw, I approve both of these patches if they are still unmerged. > ... >>>

> On May 31, 2016, at 3:38 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Mehdi >> Amini via llvm-dev >> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 2:38 PM >> To: Bill Kelly >> Cc: LLVM Dev; Clang Dev; LLDB Dev >> Subject: Re:

> -----Original Message----- > From: mehdi.amini at apple.com [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 3:54 PM > To: Robinson, Paul > Cc: Bill Kelly; Clang Dev; LLDB Dev; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] GitHub anyone? > > > > On May 31, 2016, at 3:38 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> > wrote: >

Hi Pawel, > I would like to merge r168035, r168181 and r168291 as > one reassociate changeset: r168181 has nothing to do with reassociate, so should be separate. r168035 and r168291 have no logical connection so I don't think they should be merged as one changeset. > Have you heard from Chris regarding r168291? >

Fwiw, I approve both of these patches if they are still unmerged. -Chris On Nov 18, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Pawel, > >>> Can you provide some examples of the problems you are seeing? >> >> Here is what happens. >> >> I get a message "could you please include/add/merge this r16xxxx into >>

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:55:17 -0700 Kent Overstreet <kmo at daterainc.com> wrote: > Fixup patch, addressing Andrew's review feedback: Looks reasonable. > lib/idr.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------- I still don't think it should be in this file. You say that some as-yet-unmerged patches will tie the new code into the old ida code. But will it do it in a

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 12:55:17 -0700 Kent Overstreet <kmo at daterainc.com> wrote: > Fixup patch, addressing Andrew's review feedback: Looks reasonable. > lib/idr.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------- I still don't think it should be in this file. You say that some as-yet-unmerged patches will tie the new code into the old ida code. But will it do it in a

On Nov 12, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Chandler, > > I don't quite get why you think sharing is not buying us anything... > It reduces the memory footprint of the source modules (there is sharing among the source modules) and the number of

On 20/11/12 05:57, Chris Lattner wrote: > Fwiw, I approve both of these patches if they are still unmerged. ... >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/155994.html >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/156206.html Thanks Chris. Can you please also give your go ahead for this nasty reassociate infinite loop

The reassociate patch is also ok with me. -Chris On Nov 21, 2012, at 2:26 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Pawel, > >> I would like to merge r168035, r168181 and r168291 as >> one reassociate changeset: > > r168181 has nothing to do with reassociate, so should be separate. r168035 and > r168291 have no logical connection so I don't think

> It sounds like the linker could call lto_module_dispose() right after > lto_codegen_add_module() to help reduce the memory footprint. That would be > a simple linker change. A slightly larger linker change would be to > immediately call lto_codegen_add_module() right after > lto_module_create_from_memory(), then lto_module_dispose(). That is, never > have any unmerged

Hi list! Just wondering, why is * sticking with an mpg123 version from the stoneage? Gentoo comes with 0.59s-r8 and this version doesn't even start. Ik know I could forcibly unmerge mpg123 and install the old version but I guess some day newer versions will have to be supported? Thanks!

I've recently returned to working on FreeDOS again after quite some time, and read about an unmerged MEMDISK branch that allows to boot DOS-based ISOs. This seemed quite usefull to me as it allows for faster modifications to my code/scripts/disklayout. The general idea was to install Syslinux 3.83 to harddisk, then add the modified Memdisk from that boot-land forum, as well as my ISO. In