search for: w9

...pecific to x86 – for aarch64 we get the rather spiffy: > > > > _Z3fooPii: // @_Z3fooPii > > // BB#0: // %entry > > add w8, w1, #1 // =1 > > add w9, w1, #2 // =2 > > ldr w8, [x0, w8, sxtw #2] > > ldr w9, [x0, w9, sxtw #2] > > add w8, w9, w8 > > str w8, [x0, w1, sxtw #2] > > ret &gt...

..._Z3fooii, at function _Z3fooii: // @_Z3fooii // BB#0: // %entry cbz w0, .LBB0_5 // BB#1: // %for.body.lr.ph mov w8, wzr cmp w0, #0 // =0 cinc w9, w0, lt asr w9, w9, #1 adrp x10, globalvar .LBB0_2: // %for.body // =>This Inner Loop Header: Depth=1 cmp w8, w9 b.hs .LBB0_4 // BB#3: // %if.then...

...// @_Z3fooii >> // BB#0: // %entry >> cbz w0, .LBB0_5 >> // BB#1: // %for.body.lr.ph >> mov w8, wzr >> cmp w0, #0 // =0 >> cinc w9, w0, lt >> asr w9, w9, #1 >> adrp x10, globalvar >> .LBB0_2: // %for.body >> // =>This Inner Loop Header: Depth=1 >> cmp w8, w9 >> b.hs .LBB0_...

...39;42 is involved: tJan1 <- function(n1, n2) strptime(paste0(n1:n2,"/01/01"), "%Y/%m/%d", tz="CET") wDSTJan1 <- function(n1, n2) which("CEST" == sub(".* ", '', format(tJan1(n1,n2), usetz=TRUE))) (w8 <- wDSTJan1(1801, 2300)) (w9 <- wDSTJan1(1901, 2300)) stopifnot(identical(w8, 141:142),# exactly 1941:1942 had CEST on Jan.1 identical(w9, 41: 42)) ## for R-devel Jan.2016 to Mar.14 -- *AND* for R 3.2.4 -- the above gave ## integer(0) and c(41:42, 99:100, ..., 389:390) respectively The resulting output is: &...

..._Z3fooii, at function _Z3fooii:                               // @_Z3fooii // BB#0:                                // %entry         cbz     w0, .LBB0_5 // BB#1:                                // %for.body.lr.ph         mov      w8, wzr         cmp      w0, #0                 // =0         cinc     w9, w0, lt         asr     w9, w9, #1         adrp    x10, globalvar .LBB0_2:                                // %for.body                                         // =>This Inner Loop Header: Depth=1         cmp      w8, w9         b.hs    .LBB0_4 // BB#3:                                // %if.then...

...performance testing now. Your testcase seems specific to x86 – for aarch64 we get the rather spiffy: _Z3fooPii: // @_Z3fooPii // BB#0: // %entry add w8, w1, #1 // =1 add w9, w1, #2 // =2 ldr w8, [x0, w8, sxtw #2] ldr w9, [x0, w9, sxtw #2] add w8, w9, w8 str w8, [x0, w1, sxtw #2] ret The sext can be matched as part of the addressing...

...ion sequence on AArch64 For this example code sequence: %mul = mul nuw nsw i32 %conv2, %conv %mul7 = mul nuw nsw i32 %conv6, %conv4 %add = add nuw nsw i32 %mul7, %mul ret i32 %add We generate the following assembly: mul w8, w0, w1 mul w9, w2, w3 add w0, w9, w8 ret Whereas I expected the MUL+ADD to be combined to MADD otherwise I see degraded performance in several of my tests. Could someone please explain why we use two different APIs to compute depth and latency for the two instruction...

I want to set up a dial rule like this 9304752#w9#w+NXXXXXXXXX The point of this is. It will dial into a pbx with the account number 9304752, wait a second, dial 9 to get an outside line, wait a second for the outside line, and then dial the number to be called. When ever I save this in amp anything after the first # disappears. When I try t...

...tions you mention, figuring out sshll2 and smlal2 properly, though the third causes a gratuitous extra ?ext.16b? to be generated. I?ve filed a missed-optimization bug on Clang for the latter. Here?s the code it generates: _silk_NSQ_noise_shape_feedback_loop_neon: 000000000000004c ldr w9, [x0] 0000000000000050 cmp w3, #8 0000000000000054 b.ne 0x9c 0000000000000058 dup.4s v0, w9 000000000000005c ldr q1, [x1] 0000000000000060 ext.16b v0, v0, v1, #12 0000000000000064 ldur q1, [x1, #12] 0000000000000068 ldr q2, [x2]...

To give an update here, we actually are not missing a mapping. The code complains because we are copying around a fp16 into a gpr32 and that shouldn’t be done with a copy (default mapping). I extended the repairing code to issue G_ANYEXT in those cases instead of asserting. However, now, I have to teach instruction select about those ANYEXT otherwise we’ll fallback in that case. But that’s a

...0 -mbig-endian -o - -S > > _Z9get_first3foo: // @_Z9get_first3foo > // BB#0: // %entry > sub sp, sp, #16 // =16 > // implicit-def: %X8 > fmov w9, s0 > mov w10, w9 > bfxil x8, x10, #0, #32 > fmov w9, s1 > mov w10, w9 > bfi x8, x10, #32, #32 > add x10, sp, #8 // =8 > str x8, [sp, #8] > ldr w9, [x10]...

...>; > +def W5 : Wi<5, "w5">, DwarfRegNum<[5]>; > +def W6 : Wi<6, "w6">, DwarfRegNum<[6]>; > +def W7 : Wi<7, "w7">, DwarfRegNum<[7]>; > +def W8 : Wi<8, "w8">, DwarfRegNum<[8]>; > +def W9 : Wi<9, "w9">, DwarfRegNum<[9]>; > +def W10 : Wi<10, "w10">, DwarfRegNum<[10]>; > +def W11 : Wi<11, "w11">, DwarfRegNum<[11]>; > + > +// 64-bit Integer registers > +def R0 : Ri<0, "r0", [W0]>, Dw...

...0 -mbig-endian -o - -S > > _Z9get_first3foo: // @_Z9get_first3foo > // BB#0: // %entry > sub sp, sp, #16 // =16 > // implicit-def: %X8 > fmov w9, s0 > mov w10, w9 > bfxil x8, x10, #0, #32 > fmov w9, s1 > mov w10, w9 > bfi x8, x10, #32, #32 > add x10, sp, #8 // =8 > str x8, [sp, #8] > ldr w9, [x10]...

...cting the most relevant environmental variables. The problem is that this function includes a parameter (start.vars) and my results change a lot when I change this variable...Oh my God!!! Then, one possible functionl is not the best for my data... grupo<-stepclass(GROUP~W1+W2+W3+W4+W5+W6+W7+W8+W9+W10, data=BD, method="lda", start.vars = "W1", criterion = "AS", direction = "forward") I have performed a redundancy analysis first, then there is not highly correlated variables in the variables that I include in the stepclass function. Can anybody help m...

...@foo(i32* nocapture readonly %a) #0 { entry: %0 = load i32* %a, align 4, !tbaa !1 %conv = sext i32 %0 to i64 %mul = mul nsw i64 %conv, 1405 ret i64 %mul } This promotion itself looks fine to me if nsw is true, and the final code becomes: ldrsw x8, [x0] movz w9, #0x57d mul x0, x8, x9 ret The results is different from a 32-bit mul then sext, at least for my testcase. Without nsw, ExtLdPromotion() didn't change anything, and the result is correct. Any thoughts would be helpful. Regards Lawrence Hu...

> On Nov 19, 2015, at 5:47 PM, John Ridges <jridges at masque.com> wrote: > > Any speedup from the intrinsics may just be swamped by the rest of the encode/decode process. But I think you really want SIG2WORD16 to be (vqmovns_s32(PSHR32((x), SIG_SHIFT))) Yes, you?re right. I forgot to run the vectors under qemu with my previous version (oh, the embarrassment!) Fixed forthcoming

....... 0x00f0: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 ................ 0x0100: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 ................ 0x0110: 0000 0000 0000 6382 5363 3501 0137 0e01 ......c.Sc5..7.. 0x0120: 7903 060c 0f1a 1c21 3336 3a3b 7739 0205 y......!36:;w9.. 0x0130: c03d 17ff ff00 0064 0004 c75b 2dfc 6e1b .=.....d...[-.n. 0x0140: 42ba 8108 c849 f941 dfcb 5000 9101 01ff B....I.A..P..... 0x0150: 0000 0000 0000 0000 ........ nft monitor : trace id 195bb0a6 netdev filter egress packet: oif "enp6s19...

....... 0x00f0: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 ................ 0x0100: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 ................ 0x0110: 0000 0000 0000 6382 5363 3501 0137 0e01 ......c.Sc5..7.. 0x0120: 7903 060c 0f1a 1c21 3336 3a3b 7739 0205 y......!36:;w9.. 0x0130: c03d 17ff ff00 0064 0004 c75b 2dfc 6e1b .=.....d...[-.n. 0x0140: 42ba 8108 c849 f941 dfcb 5000 9101 01ff B....I.A..P..... 0x0150: 0000 0000 0000 0000 ........ nft monitor : trace id 195bb0a6 netdev filter egress packet: oif "enp6s19...

HI James, Thanks for your reply and hints on what can be done for the Aarch64 backend optimization for llvm We have SPEC license and v8 hardware. So I will start looking into it warm regards Manjunath On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:42 PM, James Molloy <james.molloy at arm.com> wrote: > Hi Manjunath, > > At the time of writing that status we had only done our initial analysis. >

...error; + } } begin 644 libcrypt.patch M9&EF9B`M8R`N+W-E8W5R92]L:6(O;&EB8W)Y<'0O8W)Y<'0M8FQO=V9I<V@N M8R`N+W-E8W5R92]L:6(O;&EB8W)Y<'0M;F5W+V-R>7!T+6)L;W=F:7-H+F,* M*BHJ("XO<V5C=7)E+VQI8B]L:6)C<GEP="]C<GEP="UB;&]W9FES:"YC"4UO M;B!*=6X@(#(@,3(Z,3<Z,C0@,C`P,PHM+2T@+B]S96-U<F4O;&EB+VQI8F-R M>7!T+6YE=R]C<GEP="UB;&]W9FES:"YC"49R:2!*86X@(#<@,3DZ-#,Z,S$@ M,C`P-0HJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BHJ*BH**BHJ(#4U+#8P("HJ*BH*+2TM(#4U+#8S M("TM+2T*("`C:6YC;'5D92`\<WES+W1...