search for: vr2

...e vpr to vr or to move vr to vpr, there is a method to work around this. And we have load/store instructions for vr. move vpr to vr for v32i16 (from vpr0 to vr1): 1 vclr vr0 // clear vr0 2 ldi r5, 0x00010001 // load immediate (compare bit mask for v32i16) to scalar register r5 3 movr2vr.dup vr2, r5 // duplicate content in r5 into vr2, 4 vadd.t.s16 vr1, vr0, vr2, vpr0 //vector add if element compare bit is set, element type is 16 bit signed integer, now we have moved compare bits from vpr0 to vr1 5 ldi r5, 0x00020002 // load immediate (carry bit mask for v32i16...

...e vpr to vr or to move vr to vpr, there is a method to work around this. And we have load/store instructions for vr. move vpr to vr for v32i16 (from vpr0 to vr1): 1 vclr vr0 // clear vr0 2 ldi r5, 0x00010001 // load immediate (compare bit mask for v32i16) to scalar register r5 3 movr2vr.dup vr2, r5 // duplicate content in r5 into vr2, 4 vadd.t.s16 vr1, vr0, vr2, vpr0 //vector add if element compare bit is set, element type is 16 bit signed integer, now we have moved compare bits from vpr0 to vr1 5 ldi r5, 0x00020002 // load immediate (carry bit mask for v32i16...

...,"Mechanism B","Mechanism B","Mechanism B","Mechanism B","Mechanism B","Mechanism B","Mechanism B",) vn <- data.frame(MECH.NAME, PROV.PM.FBCTS, FBCTS.INV.TOT, FBCTS.REC.TOT) # create function allocation <- function(vr1, vr2, vr3) { d <- ddply(vn, "MECH.NAME", summarise, SUM = vr1 + vr2 + vr3) vn <- merge(vn, d, by.x="MECH.NAME", by.y="MECH.NAME", all=T) new <- (vr1+vr2+vr3) / vn$SUM return(new) } # run function vn$PROV.PM.FBCTS <- allocation(PROV.PM.FBCTS, FBCTS.INV.TOT,...

...ress constraints. Two address instructions work as follows. When we match an instruction we “tie” input and output registers. Say you had an LLVM-IR add: x = add i32 y, z for x86 we generate the following machine ir instruction during ISel: vr0<def, tied1> = ADD32rr vr1<use, tied0>, vr2<use> Once we go out of SSA during CodeGen we have to replace the two address constraint by copies: vr0 = vr1 vr0 = ADD32rr vr0, vr2 Coalescing and allocation will then take care of removing unnecessary copies. I think that predicate instructions would be handled similar (for the sake of ma...

...analysis, where, i need to get memory pointer for "load instruction". I want to check the pointer alias behavior. I am getting this by considering the memoperands for the load instruction.   For "load instruction", Machine Instruction dumps as below:   vr12<def> = LD_Iri %vr2<kill>, 0; mem:LD4[<unknown>]   I checked for memoperands for this MachInst, which are not empty, as "has_empty()" returns false. When I check "Value *", pointed by memoperands_begin() and memoperands_end(), i get NULL value. Thus, I don't the the memory pointer....

...tting. Virtual-to-physical rewriting happens only once at the end. When rewriting virtual registers, a minimal understanding of value semantics is required. In particular, it is possible to split a live range right down the middle of an instruction: %vr0 = add %vr0, 1 May be rewritten as: %vr2 = add %vr1, 1 This is assuming the add doesn't have two-address constraints, of course. When rewriting bundle operands, the <internal> flag will be sufficient to determine the correct virtual register. For example: { %vr0 = cmp.eq(R2,#4) if (!%vr0) R5 = #5 if (%vr0<internal&gt...

...ctions work as follows. When we match an instruction we “tie” input and output registers. > > Say you had an LLVM-IR add: > > x = add i32 y, z > > for x86 we generate the following machine ir instruction during ISel: > > vr0<def, tied1> = ADD32rr vr1<use, tied0>, vr2<use> > > Once we go out of SSA during CodeGen we have to replace the two address constraint by copies: > > vr0 = vr1 > vr0 = ADD32rr vr0, vr2 > > Coalescing and allocation will then take care of removing unnecessary copies. I think that predicate instructions would be han...

...tion between two locations based on known movement parameters, or at least explore the idea. However, I am not sure how to proceed. Below is an example of the type of data I am working with. ? I would be grateful for some thoughts or suggstions. ? Regards, ? Juliane ? ? ?????? X?????? Y????????? ID VR2 ????Fish_ID??????????????? Date VR2????Number Habitat 2 345481 3020908? 21 BPN??? 1646 2006-08-18 08:51:27??????? 31??? pass?? 3 345481 3020908? 22 BPN??? 1646 2006-08-18 08:52:05??????? 31??? pass?? 4 345481 3020908? 24 BPN??? 1646 2006-08-18 08:53:20??????? 31??? pass?? 5 345481 3020908? 43 B...

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:10 AM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: > Jeff Bush <jeffbush001 at gmail.com> writes: > >> %tx = select %mask, %x, <0.0, 0.0, 0.0 ...> >> %ty = select %mask, %y, <0.0, 0.0, 0.0 ...> >> %sum = fadd %tx, %ty >> %newvalue = select %mask, %sum, %oldvalue >> >> I believe the generated instructions depend on whether

...ater passes to handle they transparently. However, we do not want to do this before register allocation is complete. Otherwise it introduces new defs and uses of virtual registers and that mess up MachineRegisterInfo def-use chains. e.g. Now vr0 has two defs! defs: vr0<dead>, vr3, uses: vr1, vr2 ---------------------------- | vr0 = op1 vr1, vr2 | | vr3 = op2 vr0<kill>, #c | ---------------------------- 2. During register allocation, more identity copies will be eliminated while loads, stores, copies, re-materialized instructions will be introduced. It makes sense for the seco...

I'm trying to understand how predicated/masked instructions can be generated in llvm, specifically an instruction where a set bit in the mask will write the new result into the corresponding vector lane in the destination and a clear bit will cause the lane in the destination to remain what it was before the instruction executed. I've seen a few places that suggest 'select' is the

...passes to handle they transparently. However, we do not want to do this before register allocation is complete. Otherwise it introduces new defs and uses of virtual registers and that mess up MachineRegisterInfo def-use chains. e.g. Now vr0 has two defs! defs: vr0<dead>, vr3, uses: vr1, vr2 ---------------------------- | vr0 = op1 vr1, vr2 | | vr3 = op2 vr0<kill>, #c | ---------------------------- 2. During register allocation, more identity copies will be eliminated while loads, stores, copies, re-materialized instructions will be introduced. It makes sense for t...

...andle they transparently. However, we do not want to do this before register allocation is complete. Otherwise it introduces new defs and uses of virtual registers and that mess up MachineRegisterInfo def-use chains. > > e.g. Now vr0 has two defs! > defs: vr0<dead>, vr3, uses: vr1, vr2 > ---------------------------- > | vr0 = op1 vr1, vr2 | > | vr3 = op2 vr0<kill>, #c | > ---------------------------- > > 2. During register allocation, more identity copies will be eliminated while loads, stores, copies, re-materialized instructions will be introduc...

...passes to handle they transparently. However, we do not want to do this before register allocation is complete. Otherwise it introduces new defs and uses of virtual registers and that mess up MachineRegisterInfo def-use chains. e.g. Now vr0 has two defs! defs: vr0<dead>, vr3, uses: vr1, vr2 ---------------------------- | vr0 = op1 vr1, vr2 | | vr3 = op2 vr0<kill>, #c | ---------------------------- 2. During register allocation, more identity copies will be eliminated while loads, stores, copies, re-materialized instructions will be introduced. It makes sense for t...

...ater passes to handle they transparently. However, we do not want to do this before register allocation is complete. Otherwise it introduces new defs and uses of virtual registers and that mess up MachineRegisterInfo def-use chains. e.g. Now vr0 has two defs! defs: vr0<dead>, vr3, uses: vr1, vr2 ---------------------------- | vr0 = op1 vr1, vr2 | | vr3 = op2 vr0<kill>, #c | ---------------------------- 2. During register allocation, more identity copies will be eliminated while loads, stores, copies, re-materialized instructions will be introduced. It makes sense for the seco...

Hi, I am writing an analysis pass for a custom processor. I get an unusual situation where the code generated for a BB is BB#23: derived from LLVM BB %sw.bb99 Live Ins: %vr2 %vr0 %vr1 %vr9 %vr3 %vr8 %vr4 %vr5 %vr6 Predecessors according to CFG: BB#22 %vr46<def> = LD_Iri %LV, -4; mem:LD4[FixedStack0] %vr7<def> = ADDri %vr9, 1 %vr47<def> = ADDri %vr46, -4 ST_Iri %LV, -4, %vr47<kill>; mem:ST4[%cpArg.addr] >&g...

...m is, that mount_nfs failed on startup on this router because bind is not ready due to these errors and all system goes to single-user mode :( Computer is Soekris net5501, with 6 network interfaces (vr0-vr3 on board, em0 and ath0 attached). Only vr0 and vr1 are used, but adding fake addresses to vr2 and vr3 doesn't help at all. Also, mpd5 creates two NG interfaces (ng0 and ng1) on startup to connect to two providers. But previous installation (on faster hardware) doesn't show these errors at all! -- // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov <lev@FreeBSD.org>

...n(contrasts) is set will be ignored. I don't like making that choice for the user esp. since it gives wrong answers under the default contrasts, and have thought about converting back into the original contrasts, but it isn't easy with higher-way anova models. It looks easy in VR2 p 197-204 (BTW I have kroenecker and ginv functions if anyone wants them) but I don't get it to work out nicely. V&R show the contrast transformation as: alpha_T = ginv(C_T) %*% C_H %*% alpha_H where C_T is the contrast matrix for treatment contrasts, and C_H for Helmert con...