search for: unorder

Hi All, I noticed LLVM target independent side is converting an ordered less than "setolt" into unordered greater than "setuge" operation. There are no target hooks to control going from the ordered mode into unordered. I am trying to figure out the best way to support unordered operation on Hexagon. We don't have a single instruction to do unordered operation. So we will have to break...

Hi All, I am reading about LLVM IR atomics (http://llvm.org/docs/Atomics.html) and get confused about the difference between "Unordered" and "Monotonic". In particular, I am not sure I understand the statement of "It essentially guarantees that if you take all the operations affecting a specific address, a consistent ordering exists.". For me, it means that for the following example, if {r1,r2} = {1,2}, {...

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:00 PM, <sundeepk at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi All, > > I noticed LLVM target independent side is converting an ordered less than > "setolt" into unordered greater than "setuge" operation. There are no > target hooks to control going from the ordered mode into unordered. > > I am trying to figure out the best way to support unordered operation on > Hexagon. We don't have a single instruction to do unordered operation. So &g...

Hi all, We somewhat recently created/updated element-wise unordered-atomic versions of the memcpy, memmove, and memset memory intrinsics: Memcpy: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL305558 Memmove: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL307796 Memset: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL307854 These intrinsics are semantically similar to the regular versions. The main difference is that the...

...om> wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > [+CC Mehdi, Vedant for the auto upgrade issue] > > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Neilson via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> **Method** >> >> Clearly we are going to have to teach LLVM about unordered memory >> intrinsics. There are, as I can see it, a couple of ways to accomplish this. >> I’d like your opinions on which are preferable, or if you can think of any >> other options. In no particular order… >> >> Option 1) >> Introduce a new unordered/element-...

...of uint16’s; such a splitting could result in a data-race where each of the split loads can load a different version of the variable’s value (due to the variable being stored-to in other threads of execution). In LLVM, the atomic-like behaviour is achieved by emitting an atomic load/store with the ‘unordered’ ordering constraint. In LLVM there is a loop idiom recognition pass that will convert loops that look like memcpy/memmove/memset into a direct call to the corresponding intrinsic — which allows the rest of the LLVM passes to reason about the operation better, and for codegen to materialize pro...

On 29 August 2013 10:12, Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> wrote: > But this is another case. LLVM IR distinguishes between ordered and unordered compare and X86 backend has appropriate instructions. I think LLVM uses ordered/unordered compare to mean something different to what the x86 instructions do. For example, "not equal": fcmp une == unordered not equal == A is NaN, B is NaN, or A != B fcmp one == ordered and equ...

But this is another case. LLVM IR distinguishes between ordered and unordered compare and X86 backend has appropriate instructions. But during DAG selection we just lose this information and always generate unordered fcmp. I.e. in case of ordered fcmp the vcomiss should be generated, and in case of unordered - vucomiss. - Elena -----Original Message----- From: Dr D. C...

...Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > If so, a compare that used that instruction would have to become more > like an "invoke" with a landingpad for the exception and so on, > wouldn't it? The current fcmp can already distinguish between ordered > and unordered, because ucomiss provides that information. There are currently lots of limitations in the expressiveness of LLVM IR for floating point operations (e.g. distinguishing between trapping and non-trapping cases and representing the floating point environment). If anyone wants to fully implement th...

> The function ISD::getSetCCInverse() would probably be useful for you > here: you can use it to transform an unordered operation into an > ordered operation. Thanks for your reply Eli. I will check how to convert unordered operations back to ordered one. I have another related question - is it possible for frontend (clang) to generate unordered operation from the source code? -Sundeep

I don't understand under what situation ordered factor rather than unordered factor should be used. Could somebody give me some examples? What are the implications of order vs. unordered factors? Could somebody recommend a textbook to me?

Thanks for your response David. 1) I'm not sure it's do-able. I don't know of any nice way to track whether an ordered walk of an unordered container leaks out into the final output of the program. Only iterating over an unordered container is probably not a sufficient hint (it'd have a high false positive rate to warn on every instance of that) - and I don't have any great ideas about whether that false positive rate cou...

Hi, I am trying to generate all unordered combinations of a set of numbers / characters, and I can only find a (very) clumsy way of doing this using expand.grid. For example, all unordered combinations of the numbers 0, 1, 2 are: 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 1 0, 0, 2 0, 1, 1 0, 1, 2 0, 2, 2 1, 1, 1 1, 1, 2 1, 2, 2 2, 2, 2 (I have not included, for e...

...True if ordered and less than - FCMP_OLE = 5, /// 0 1 0 1 True if ordered and less than or equal - FCMP_ONE = 6, /// 0 1 1 0 True if ordered and operands are unequal - FCMP_ORD = 7, /// 0 1 1 1 True if ordered (no nans) - FCMP_UNO = 8, /// 1 0 0 0 True if unordered: isnan(X) | isnan(Y) - FCMP_UEQ = 9, /// 1 0 0 1 True if unordered or equal - FCMP_UGT = 10, /// 1 0 1 0 True if unordered or greater than - FCMP_UGE = 11, /// 1 0 1 1 True if unordered, greater than, or equal - FCMP_ULT = 12, /// 1 1 0 0 True if unordered or...

I found that there is no diff in code generator for Ordered / Unordered FP compare instructions. FUCOMISS, FUCOMISD are generated in the both cases. - Elena --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recip...

I am attempted to examine the temporal independence of my data set and think I need an unordered multinomial logistic regression (or logit model) with repeated measures to do so. The data in question is location of chickens. Chickens could be in any one of 5 locations when a snapshot sample was taken. The locations of chickens (bird) in 8 pens (pen) were scored twice a day (AMPM) for 20 days...

Given an ordered factor, how does one unorder it? I tried various commands with reorder, with order=F, but they all gave me error messages. I also tried to drop the order with various 'as dot something' commands, but these didn't work either. -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/unorder-an-ordered-factor-tp2014745...

Should I open a ticket for this? - Elena From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 19:51 To: Demikhovsky, Elena Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Ordered / Unordered FP compare are not handled properly on X86 On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com<mailto:elena.demikhovsky at intel.com>> wrote: I found that there is no diff in code generator for Ordered / Unordered FP compare instructions. FUCOMISS, FUC...

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Demikhovsky, Elena < elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> wrote: > I found that there is no diff in code generator for Ordered / Unordered > FP compare instructions. > FUCOMISS, FUCOMISD are generated in the both cases. > > > Yes. That's how fcmp is defined in LangRef. -Eli -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/201...

In the past, I had added the ability in LLVM to uncover 2 types of non-deterministic behaviors: iteration of unordered containers with pointer-like keys and sorting of elements with the same keys. Now, I wanted to add checkers for these (and other types of non-deterministic behaviors) so that they could be applied more widely. I also realize that not all of these may be doable at compile-time. With that in m...