search for: xforms

Anyone had experience using XForms with rails? Did you have to write xform helpers? Any info would be appreciated - thanks -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

I remember why I didn't implement this rule in Instcombine. It add one instruction. So, this xform should be driven by a redundancy eliminator if you care code size. On 8/8/13 10:13 AM, Shuxin Yang wrote: > I did few transformation in Instruction *InstCombiner::visitFDiv() in > an attempt to remove some divs. > I may miss this case. If you need to implement this rule, it is >

Hi, I have a dataframe that has a column of vectors that I need to extract off the character string before the first '.' character and put it into a separate column. I thought I could use 'strsplit' for it within 'transform', but I can't seem to get the right invocation. Here is a sample dataframe that has what I have, what I want, and what I get. Can someone tell

I have tried this code : http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms532658(VS.85).aspx SCALE, TRANSLATE, REFLECT do work, but ROTATE, SHEAR don't. The new PlgBlt (0.9.59) does not work too. Some hint, please ?

I did few transformation in Instruction *InstCombiner::visitFDiv() in an attempt to remove some divs. I may miss this case. If you need to implement this rule, it is better done in Instcombine than in DAG combine. Doing such xform early expose the redundancy of 1/y, which have positive impact to neighboring code, while DAG combine is bit blind. You should be very careful, reciprocal is very

I believe we were under the impression that InstCombine, as a canonicalized/optimizer, should not increase code size but only reduce it. Minor aside, but you don't need all of fast-math for the IR, just the "arcp" flag, which allows for replacement of division with reciprocal-multiply. On Aug 8, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > I remember

>I'm just curious as tho which concrete passes would benefit sooner. This all depends on those who are working on other loop xforms, since we currently don't have bandwidth to drive that kind of changes into other loop xforms. That's why when this line of questions pops up, I offer to work together. Short of that, the best we can proactively do is to make vectorizer analyses available outside of vectorizer (and easy to...

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Dietmar Ebner wrote: >> currently, the DAGCombiner unconditionally converts >> (DAGCombiner::visit(U|S)REM) expressions of the form X % C for constants >> C into X-X/C*C. this makes sense in certain cases where the div/mul >> logic will simplify X/C*X but is counterproductive in general, >>

On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Jakub Staszak wrote: > Hello, > > This patch fixes PR2218. Very nice. Are you sure this fixes PR2218? The example there doesn't have any loads in it. > However, I'm not pretty sure that this optimization should be in > MemCpyOpt. I think that GVN is good place as well. Yes, you're right. My long term goal is to merge the relevant

Hello, This patch fixes PR2218. However, I'm not pretty sure that this optimization should be in MemCpyOpt. I think that GVN is good place as well. Regards -- Jakub Staszak -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pr2218.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 6146 bytes Desc: not available URL:

...be worth only by that much. I have a thought about moving vectorizer's analysis part (all the way to cost model) into Analysis. When extra precision is desired, we can utilize such an (heavier weight) Analysis. In short, my preference is to make vectorizer's analysis more usable by other xforms than making more and more loop xforms happen inside LV. In the meantime, if those who are working on LD needs our input in tuning LD cost model, I'm more than happy to pitch in. We can also discuss what part of vectorizer analysis is helpful in LD at the same time. Thanks, Hideki -----Origin...

hi, thanks for your answer. On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 23:25 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Dietmar Ebner wrote: > >> currently, the DAGCombiner unconditionally converts > >> (DAGCombiner::visit(U|S)REM) expressions of the form X % C for constants > >> C into X-X/C*C. this makes sense in certain

I am confused by this bit of code in instcombine: 09789 if (GetElementPtrInst *GEPI = dyn_cast<GetElementPtrInst>(Op)) { 09790 const Value *GEPI0 = GEPI->getOperand(0); 09791 // TODO: Consider a target hook for valid address spaces for this xform. 09792 if (isa<ConstantPointerNull>(GEPI0) && 09793

On 09/13/2018 02:43 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 at 18:46, Saito, Hideki <hideki.saito at intel.com> wrote: >> This all depends on those who are working on other loop xforms, since we currently don't have bandwidth to drive that kind of changes into other loop xforms. That's why when this line of questions pops up, I offer to work together. Short of that, the best we can proactively do is to make vectorizer analyses available outside of vectorizer (and easy to...

..., Diego <diego.caballero at intel.com>; Florian Hahn <florian.hahn at arm.com> Subject: Re: Loop Distribution pass On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 at 18:03, Saito, Hideki <hideki.saito at intel.com> wrote: > In short, my preference is to make vectorizer's analysis more usable by other xforms than making more and more loop xforms happen inside LV. Agreed! I wasn't alluding to moving the analysis inside LV, just using it inside a V2V transform to find more options to vectorise. --renato

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, David Greene wrote: > I am confused by this bit of code in instcombine: > > 09789 if (GetElementPtrInst *GEPI = dyn_cast<GetElementPtrInst>(Op)) { > 09790 const Value *GEPI0 = GEPI->getOperand(0); > 09791 // TODO: Consider a target hook for valid address spaces for this > xform. > 09792 if (isa<ConstantPointerNull>(GEPI0)

...ed, does not mean non affine subscripts cannot be worked with at all. They just provide less information. >> The big selling point of polyhedral transformations is uniform handling >> of several transformations. > > Right. In olden times, people use a bunch of independent loop xforms, > composed in different ways to achieve different effects. Then came the > unimodular xforms which could achieve the effect of combining several > xforms (but not all). The came the polyhedral approach, which could do > quite a bit more, including the actual dependence analysis, as lo...

i have a vector with values similar to the below text [1] 001-010-001-0 I want to get rid of all leading zeroes. for example i want to change the values of the vector so that [1] 001-010-001-0 becomes [1] 1-010-001-0. Another example [1]082-232-232-1 becomes [1] 82-232-232-1 how do i do this? -- View this message in context:

What are the current limitations of using -O4 in llvm-gcc-4.2? As a first test, I compiled the molscript program first as -O3 and it works fine. However if i try to compile the same code as -O4, the build fails with... ar -cru clib.a args.o str_utils.o dynstring.o err.o indent.o vector3.o matrix3.o quaternion.o body3d.o extent3d.o io_utils.o colour.o key_value.o named_data.o double_hash.o

Hey llvm-dev, Continuing a discussion from D50913... A group working on the FP rounding mode and trap-safety project have run into a situation where it would make sense to add a new FNEG instruction and decouple the existing FNEG<->FSUB transformations. The IEEE-754 Standard (Section 5.5.1) makes it clear that neg(x) and sub(-0.0,x) are two different operations. The former is a bitwise