search for: variant

...fh409c, "0x4091c4" => $fh409d, "0x41a184" => $fh41ac, "0x41a1c4" => $fh41ad);while (<>) { exit if (/0x409840/); next if (!/W (0x4(?:09|1a)1[c8]4) .* <= (?:.*0x)?(.*)/); print { $m{$1} } pack "I", hex($2);}' I don't know which chipset variant to use! I don't know which chipset variant to use! I don't know which chipset variant to use! I don't know which chipset variant to use! I don't know which chipset variant to use! I don't know which chipset variant to use! I don't know which chipset variant to use! I don'...

Why the output is different for this below program when compiled using clang with fast-math optimization #include<stdio.h> int main() { double d = 1.0; double max = 1.79769e+308; d /= max; printf("d:%e:\n", d); d *= max; printf("d:%e:\n", d); return 0; } prints 0 with fast math but 1 without fast math. -------------- next part -------------- An

I installed the most current version of Wine and then installed Legacy 7.0 onto my Ubuntu 8.04. the installation seemed to 'take'. Unfortunately when I activate Legacy, all I get is a view 1/4 of the screen - not a full screen, just the upper left had corner which shows a partial Legacy screen. I did not get any 'runtime' errors - just the partial screen and the program will not

...t x86 and aarch64 Vector Function ABIs use to mangle the names. > > I agree with you that having to manually specify the mangling is a bit cumbersome, I am open to suggestions. > > An alternative approach was to make the actual string inside the attribute to accept anything a `declare variant` in a `simd` context could accept, but that wold probably raise the same problems that `declare variant` has raised. > > In fact, on AArch64, a typical use of declare variant would be more complicated than just specifying `simd` in the `context`, with `simdlen` and `[not]inbranch`. It would...

>Although there are some "isohybrid.exe" around, there is no official support for them and they are also outdated. >The Syslinux mailing list already includes several emails about issues in the included isohybrid variants. I think that deleting either of them would be a mistake. At least users such as Ian might benefit from both being included. >Ideally, the Perl variant should get updated at least with the patches that the C variant already includes, and then solve the remaining known problems. Any takers?...

# ./testcall testcall.conf Chan 1, class 'mfcr2', variant 'ar,10,4', end 1, caller 0, from '30025860' to '013331339767' Chan 2, class 'mfcr2', variant 'ar,10,4', end 1, caller 0, from '30025861' to '013331339768' Chan 3, class 'mfcr2', variant 'ar,10,4', end 1, caller 0, from '300...

...Philipp Zabel wrote: > > I don't know if it has been discussed in the past, so forgive me if it > > has been. Have you considered adding a "int flags" argument to the > > existing reset_control_get_*() functions, rather than introducing > > separate exclusive variants ? > > > > Indeed, with a "int flags" argument you could in the future add more > > variants/behaviors without actually multiplying the number of > > functions. Something like the "flags" argument for request_irq() for > > example. > > I c...

...================================================================================= Introduction ============ This RFC encompasses the proposal of informing the vectorizer about the availability of vector functions provided by the user. The mechanism is based on the use of the directive `declare variant` introduced in OpenMP 5.0 [^1]. The mechanism proposed has the following properties: 1. Decouples the compiler front-end that knows about the availability of vectorized routines, from the back-end that knows how to make use of them. 2. Enable support for a developer's own vector lib...

...zation of > custom functions.  I have several use cases which would benefit from this. > > I'd suggest a couple of reframings to the IR representation though. > > First, this should probably be specified as metadata/attribute on a > function declaration.  Allowing the callsite variant is fine, but it > should primarily be a property of the called function, not of the call > site.  Being able to specify it once per declaration is much cleaner. I agree. We should support this both on the function declaration and on the call sites. > > Second, I really don't li...

> Hi, > > Ady: > > Since both included variants are currently different, and both > > variants have problems > > I am not aware of problems of the perl version. It is just lacking > the newer features which support EFI/GPT and Mac/APM. > The known bugs of isohybrid.c are with those newer features. > http://www.syslinux....

On 05/31, Saito, Hideki wrote: > > >This works for variants that are created from definitions in the module but what about #omp declare simd declarations? > > I'm sorry that I haven't digested this thread in its entirety, but let me just deal with this one point for now. > Suppose #pragma omp declare simd is applied to foo(). I'd expe...

I think I did misunderstand what you want to do with attributes. This is my bad. Let me try to explain: It seems you want the "vector-variants" attributes (which I could not find with this name in trunk, correct?) to "remember" what vector versions can be created (wrt. validity), assuming a definition is available? Correct? What I was concerned with is the example I sketched somewhere below which motivates the need for a g...

...ze should process the #pragma omp simd simdlen() and that's the real end of the callee side handling of #pragma omp declare simd. The code is still fully functional w/o LoopVectorize vectorizing that loop. >I don’t know if the patches related to VecClone also are intended to use the `vector-variant` attribute for function declaration with a #pragma omp declare simd. VecClone predated #pragma omp declare variant. So that patches doesn’t know about declare variant. VecClone was written for handling #pragma omp declare simd, as described above. OpenCL/SYCL kernel is similar enough to OpenMP dec...

...several use cases which would benefit from this. >>> >>> I'd suggest a couple of reframings to the IR representation though. >>> >>> First, this should probably be specified as metadata/attribute on a >>> function declaration.  Allowing the callsite variant is fine, but it >>> should primarily be a property of the called function, not of the call >>> site.  Being able to specify it once per declaration is much cleaner. >> I agree. We should support this both on the function declaration and on >> the call sites. >> &...

...rom this. >>>>> >>>>> I'd suggest a couple of reframings to the IR representation though. >>>>> >>>>> First, this should probably be specified as metadata/attribute on a >>>>> function declaration.  Allowing the callsite variant is fine, but it >>>>> should primarily be a property of the called function, not of the call >>>>> site.  Being able to specify it once per declaration is much cleaner. >>>> I agree. We should support this both on the function declaration and on >>&gt...

...e scalar function. > [...] > The code is still fully functional w/o LoopVectorize vectorizing that loop. Is this also the case if the user did require lock-step semantic for the code to be correct? > >I don’t know if the patches related to VecClone also are intended to use the `vector-variant` attribute for function declaration with a #pragma omp declare simd. > > VecClone predated #pragma omp declare variant. So that patches doesn’t > know about declare variant. VecClone was written for handling #pragma omp declare simd, as described above. OpenCL/SYCL kernel is similar enou...

...ension needs to be targeted. The symbol names should carry all the information we need. If they do not, we need to improve the mangling scheme such that they do. There is no attributes/metadata we could use at library boundaries. > I used an example based on `declare simd` instead of `declare variant` > because the attribute/metadata needed for `declare variant` is a > modification of the one needed for `declare simd`, which has already > been agreed in a previous RFC proposed by Intel [1], and for which > Intel has already provided an implementation [2]. The changes proposed > i...

...ble vector version needs to deal also with things that are not usually visible at IR level, but that might still need to be provided to be able to decide which particular instruction set/ vector extension needs to be targeted. > > I used an example based on `declare simd` instead of `declare variant` because the attribute/metadata needed for `declare variant` is a modification of the one needed for `declare simd`, which has already been agreed in a previous RFC proposed by Intel [1], and for which Intel has already provided an implementation [2]. The changes proposed in this RFC are fully comp...

...e assert feature is something you may be interested in seeing as > an extended part of LLVM implementation of OpenMP (declare) simd. > Else, vectorization report would tell you whether it was vectorized or > not. Wait, why do you think it is beyond the OpenMP specification? If an OpenMP variant is picked based on the context the user should be able to assume the context requirements are fulfilled. If we agree on that, I don't see how we can do anything else than emitting an error if we optimistically picked a vector variant but failed to vectorize. I don't think that precludes the...