search for: variants

Is this expected result for Chipset: G98 (NV98)? $ modinfo nvidia -F version 304.123 $ stat -c %s mmiotrace.log 134659197 $ file mmiotrace.log mmiotrace.log: ASCII text $ grep -i lost mmiotrace.log ; echo $? 1 $ ./envytools/rnn/demmio -f mmiotrace.log | perl -e 'open($fh409c, ">fuc409c"); open($fh409d, ">fuc409d"); open($fh41ac, ">fuc41ac");

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

Hi Francesco, On 06/03, Francesco Petrogalli wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2019, at 1:43 PM, Andrea Bocci <andrea.bocci at cern.ch> wrote: > > as a candidate future user of the proposed extension, I think I like the simplified proposal better than the original RFC. > > > > The only part of the syntax that I would find not very much user-friendly is having to mangle the

>Although there are some "isohybrid.exe" around, there is no official support for them and they are also outdated.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 '30025862' to

...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 ca...

...nds the original by allowing the explicit mapping of the Vector Function ABI mangled name to a non-standard name, which allows the use of existing vector libraries. The `vector-variant` attribute needs to be attached on a per-call basis to avoid conflicts when merging modules with different vector variants. The query infrastructure: SVFS {#infrastructure} ------------------------------ The Search Vector Function System (SVFS) is constructed from an `llvm::Module` instance so it can create function definitions. The SVFS exposes an API with two methods. ### `SVFS::isFunctionVectorizable` This metho...

...plicit mapping of the Vector Function ABI mangled name to >> a non-standard name, which allows the use of existing vector libraries. >> >> The `vector-variant` attribute needs to be attached on a per-call basis >> to avoid conflicts when merging modules with different vector variants. >> >> The query infrastructure: SVFS {#infrastructure} >> ------------------------------ >> >> The Search Vector Function System (SVFS) is constructed from an >> `llvm::Module` instance so it can create function definitions. The SVFS >> exposes an API with...

> 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.o...

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 expec...

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 ge...

...vector function for auto-vectorization. > On May 31, 2019, at 2:56 PM, Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> wrote: > > 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? Yes. > What I was concerned with is the example I sketched somewhere below &g...

...ction ABI mangled name to >>>> a non-standard name, which allows the use of existing vector libraries. >>>> >>>> The `vector-variant` attribute needs to be attached on a per-call basis >>>> to avoid conflicts when merging modules with different vector variants. >>>> >>>> The query infrastructure: SVFS {#infrastructure} >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> The Search Vector Function System (SVFS) is constructed from an >>>> `llvm::Module` instance so it can create function de...

...hancement worth considering. > I recently talked to people in the OpenMP language committee meeting > about this and, thinking forward to the actual implementation/use of the > OpenMP 5.x declare variant feature, I'd say: > > - We will need a mangling scheme if we want to allow variants on > declarations that are defined elsewhere. > - We will need a (OpenMP) standardized mangling scheme if we want > interoperability between compilers. > > I assume we want both so I think we will need both. If I'm reading this correctly, this describes a need for the f...

...> > > > On May 31, 2019, at 2:56 PM, Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> wrote: > > > > 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? > > Yes. > > > What I was concerned with is the exa...

...g don for > the VecClone pass in [2]. > > [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2016-March/047732.html > [2] VecCLone pass: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22792 Having an agreed upon mangling for the older feature is not necessarily important here. We will need more functionality for variants and keeping the old scheme around with some metadata is not an extensible long-term solution. So, I would not try to fit variants into the existing simd-scheme but instead do it the other way around. We define what we need for variants and implement simd in that scheme. > The good news is that...

...ould already be shared among x86 and aarch64. > > TOPIC 2: metadata vs attribute > > From a functionality point of view, I don’t care whether we use metadata or attributes. The VecClone pass mentioned in TOPIC 1 uses the following: > > attributes #0 = { nounwind uwtable “vector-variants"="_ZGVbM4vv_vec_sum,_ZGVbN4vv_vec_sum,_ZGVcM8vv_vec_sum,_ZGVcN8vv_vec_sum,_ZGVdM8vv_vec_sum,_ZGVdN8vv_vec_sum,_ZGVeM16vv_vec_sum,_ZGVeN16”} > > This is an attribute (I though it was metadata?), I am happy to reword the RFC using the right terminology (sorry for messing this up). &g...

...n May 31, 2019, at 2:56 PM, Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> wrote: > > > > > > 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? > > > > Yes. > > > > > W...