similar to: generating unordered combinations

Hi All, I noticed LLVM target independent side is converting an ordered less than "setolt" into unordered greater than "setuge" operation. There are no target hooks to control going from the ordered mode into unordered. I am trying to figure out the best way to support unordered operation on Hexagon. We don't have a single instruction to do unordered operation. So we

Hi All, I am reading about LLVM IR atomics (http://llvm.org/docs/Atomics.html) and get confused about the difference between "Unordered" and "Monotonic". In particular, I am not sure I understand the statement of "It essentially guarantees that if you take all the operations affecting a specific address, a consistent ordering exists.". For me, it means that for the

On 29 Aug 2013, at 08:19, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > If so, a compare that used that instruction would have to become more > like an "invoke" with a landingpad for the exception and so on, > wouldn't it? The current fcmp can already distinguish between ordered > and unordered, because ucomiss provides that information. There are currently

On 29 August 2013 10:12, Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> wrote: > But this is another case. LLVM IR distinguishes between ordered and unordered compare and X86 backend has appropriate instructions. I think LLVM uses ordered/unordered compare to mean something different to what the x86 instructions do. For example, "not equal": fcmp une == unordered not

I don't understand under what situation ordered factor rather than unordered factor should be used. Could somebody give me some examples? What are the implications of order vs. unordered factors? Could somebody recommend a textbook to me?

But this is another case. LLVM IR distinguishes between ordered and unordered compare and X86 backend has appropriate instructions. But during DAG selection we just lose this information and always generate unordered fcmp. I.e. in case of ordered fcmp the vcomiss should be generated, and in case of unordered - vucomiss. - Elena -----Original Message----- From: Dr D. Chisnall [mailto:dc552 at

List: Thank you for the replies to my post yesterday. Gabor and Phil also gave useful replies on how to improve the function by relying on mapply rather than the explicit for loop. In general, I try and use the family of apply functions rather than the looping constructs such as for, while etc as a matter of practice. However, it seems the mapply function in this case is slower (in terms of CPU

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:00 PM, <sundeepk at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi All, > > I noticed LLVM target independent side is converting an ordered less than > "setolt" into unordered greater than "setuge" operation. There are no > target hooks to control going from the ordered mode into unordered. > > I am trying to figure out the best way to support

> The function ISD::getSetCCInverse() would probably be useful for you > here: you can use it to transform an unordered operation into an > ordered operation. Thanks for your reply Eli. I will check how to convert unordered operations back to ordered one. I have another related question - is it possible for frontend (clang) to generate unordered operation from the source code? -Sundeep

I found that there is no diff in code generator for Ordered / Unordered FP compare instructions. FUCOMISS, FUCOMISD are generated in the both cases. - Elena --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or

I am attempted to examine the temporal independence of my data set and think I need an unordered multinomial logistic regression (or logit model) with repeated measures to do so. The data in question is location of chickens. Chickens could be in any one of 5 locations when a snapshot sample was taken. The locations of chickens (bird) in 8 pens (pen) were scored twice a day (AMPM) for 20 days

Should I open a ticket for this? - Elena From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 19:51 To: Demikhovsky, Elena Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Ordered / Unordered FP compare are not handled properly on X86 On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com<mailto:elena.demikhovsky at

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Demikhovsky, Elena < elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> wrote: > I found that there is no diff in code generator for Ordered / Unordered > FP compare instructions. > FUCOMISS, FUCOMISD are generated in the both cases. > > > Yes. That's how fcmp is defined in LangRef. -Eli -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

Hi all, When trying to generate a VFCmp instruction when UnsafeFPMath is set to true I get an assert "Unexpected CondCode" on my x86 system. This also happens with UnsafeFPMath set to false and using an unordered compare. Could someone look into this? While I'm at it, is there any reason why only the most significant bit of the return value of VFCmp is defined (according to

On Jun 13, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi all, > > When trying to generate a VFCmp instruction when UnsafeFPMath is set > to true I get an assert “Unexpected CondCode” on my x86 system. This > also happens with UnsafeFPMath set to false and using an unordered > compare. Could someone look into this? Have you filed a bug? > > While I’m at it, is there

On Jun 13, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi all, > > When trying to generate a VFCmp instruction when UnsafeFPMath is set > to true I get an assert “Unexpected CondCode” on my x86 system. This > also happens with UnsafeFPMath set to false and using an unordered > compare. Could someone look into this? Please provide a testcase. > > While I’m at it, is

On Jun 13, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi all, > > When trying to generate a VFCmp instruction when UnsafeFPMath is set > to true I get an assert “Unexpected CondCode” on my x86 system. This > also happens with UnsafeFPMath set to false and using an unordered > compare. Could someone look into this? > > While I’m at it, is there any reason why only the

Hi Chris, I've attached a replacement of fibonacci.cpp that reproduces the issue on x86/SSE systems. Regarding the definition of the VFCmp instruction, I think it would really be a lot more valuable to define it as returning all 1's or all 0's per element. Just setting the most significant bit is pretty much worthless (someone correct me if I'm wrong). I checked and I

Hi, I have generated a profile likelihood for a parameter (x) and am trying to get 95% confidence limits by calculating the two points where the log likelihood (LogL) is 2 units less than the maximum LogL. I would like to do this by linear interpolation and so I have been trying to use the function approxfun which allows me to get a function to calculate LogL for any value of x within

I have data that comes into R already ordered. When I use ggplot, it orders them which I don't want. How do I fix this without changing options("contrast")? The data I have is number of days: 30 29 ... 20 19 ... 10 9 ... 1 When I plot with ggplot, it orders them by the first number only. So 3 ends up coming before 29. -- View this message in context: