Displaying 20 results from an estimated 2000 matches similar to: "isolinux bug?"
2008 Sep 12
3
[LLVMdev] Difficulty with reusing DAG nodes.
I'm trying to implement *MUL_LOHI for my processor.
My processor has mulxss (e.g.) that gives the 32 high bits of a 64 bit
multiply.
I tried this in ios2ISelDAGToDAG.cpp:
/// Mul/Div with two results
case ISD::SMUL_LOHI:
case ISD::UMUL_LOHI: {
SDValue Op1 = Node->getOperand(0);
SDValue Op2 = Node->getOperand(1);
AddToISelQueue(Op1);
2017 Nov 29
2
Autoreplies are not sent
Hi,
Let's say I have 2 domains:
- Virtual Mailbox Domain: example.local (internal domain)
- Virtual Alias Domain: example.com (public domain)
Every mail sent to @example.com is really sent to @example.local.
I have a virtual alias that forward mails sent to support-abc at example.com
is sent finally to:
op1 at example.local
Now, I'd want to every mail was sent to support-abc at
2013 Jan 09
0
[LLVMdev] Global variable initializer type does not match global variable type
Peter Zotov писал 09.01.2013 19:59:
> Hello.
>
> I've managed to create a bitcode file (attached; also available at
> [1]) which produces
> a series of identical errors when verified:
>
> | Global variable initializer type does not match global variable
> type!
> | %i.NilClass* @nil
>
> When ran through llvm-dis and recompiled, through, it verifies
>
2010 Sep 08
5
Newbie cross tabulation issue
hi, i'm new in R and i need some help. Please, ¿do you know a function how
can process cross tables for many variables and show the result in one table
who look like this?:
+----------------------------------------------------+
|------------------ | X variable |
|----------------- | Xop1 | Xop2 | Xop3|.....|
+----------------------------------------------------+
|Yvar1 |
2009 Sep 02
1
[LLVMdev] LangRef description of 'add nsw' doesn't match reality
The langref says for the 'add' instruction:
Syntax:
<result> = add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ; yields {ty}:result
<result> = nuw add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ; yields {ty}:result
<result> = nsw add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ; yields {ty}:result
<result> = nuw nsw add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ;
2010 Oct 01
0
[LLVMdev] Illegal optimization in LLVM 2.8 during SelectionDAG? (Re: comparison pattern trouble - might be a bug in LLVM 2.8?)
On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote:
> Bill Wendling wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote:
>>>
>>>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers.
>>>>
>>>> I've defined comparison
>>>>
>>>> def
2010 Sep 29
1
[LLVMdev] comparison pattern trouble - might be a bug in LLVM 2.8?
On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote:
> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers.
>
> I've defined comparison
>
>
> def NErrb : InstTCE<(outs I1Regs:$op3), (ins I32Regs:$op1,I32Regs:$op2), "", [(set I1Regs:$op3, (setne I32Regs:$op1, I32Regs:$op2))]>;
>
>
>
>
> But then I end up having the following bug:
>
>
2010 Sep 29
2
[LLVMdev] comparison pattern trouble
Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers.
I've defined comparison
def NErrb : InstTCE<(outs I1Regs:$op3), (ins I32Regs:$op1,I32Regs:$op2), "", [(set I1Regs:$op3, (setne I32Regs:$op1, I32Regs:$op2))]>;
But then I end up having the following bug:
Code
%0 = zext i8 %data to i32
%1 = zext i16 %crc to i32
%2 = xor i32 %1, %0
%3 = and i32 %2, 1
%4 =
2010 Sep 30
4
[LLVMdev] Illegal optimization in LLVM 2.8 during SelectionDAG? (Re: comparison pattern trouble - might be a bug in LLVM 2.8?)
Bill Wendling wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote:
>
>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote:
>>
>>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers.
>>>
>>> I've defined comparison
>>>
>>> def NErrb : InstTCE<(outs I1Regs:$op3), (ins I32Regs:$op1,I32Regs:$op2), "", [(set
2017 Nov 29
3
RFC: Adding 'no-overflow' keyword to 'sdiv'\'udiv' instructions
Introduction:
We would like to add new keyword to 'sdiv'\'udiv' instructions i.e. 'no-overflow'.
This is the updated solution devised in the discussion: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118257.html
The proposed keywords:
"nof" stands for 'no-overflow'
Syntax:
<result> = sdiv nof <ty> <op1>,
2010 Sep 29
0
[LLVMdev] comparison pattern trouble - might be a bug in LLVM 2.8?
On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote:
>
>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers.
>>
>> I've defined comparison
>>
>> def NErrb : InstTCE<(outs I1Regs:$op3), (ins I32Regs:$op1,I32Regs:$op2), "", [(set I1Regs:$op3, (setne I32Regs:$op1, I32Regs:$op2))]>;
2017 Nov 30
1
Autoreplies are not sent
El 30 nov. 2017 4:02 a.m., "Steffen Kaiser" <skdovecot at inf.h-brs.de>
escribi?:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017, Sergio Belkin wrote:
Now, I'd want to every mail was sent to support-abc at example.com it triggers
> an autoreply vacation style.
>
> So, I've wrote and compiled a sieve filter, something like that and put in
>
2011 Jan 24
3
[LLVMdev] How to change the type of an Instruction?
Hi,
Nick, thanks for the reply.
I still have a problem: I only need to "clone" an Instruction, changing its
type. That is, I would like to keep all characteristics of the old
Instruction and create a new one only with a different type. I am trying
create a new Instruction thus:
%3 = add nsw i32 %1, %2 ; <i16> [#uses=2] //Old Instruction
Value* Op0 = I->getOperand(0);
Value*
2018 Feb 09
1
Optim function returning always initial value for parameter to be optimized
Hello,
I'm trying to fminimize the following problem:
You have a data frame with 2 columns.
data.input= data.frame(state1 = (1:500), state2 = (201:700) )
with data that partially overlap in terms of values.
I want to minimize the assessment error of each state by using this function:
err.th.scalar <- function(threshold, data){
state1 <- data$state1
state2 <- data$state2
2011 Jan 24
0
[LLVMdev] How to change the type of an Instruction?
On 01/24/2011 04:41 AM, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Nick, thanks for the reply.
> I still have a problem: I only need to "clone" an Instruction, changing
> its type. That is, I would like to keep all characteristics of the old
> Instruction and create a new one only with a different type.
Sure, but what about its operands? An "add" instruction
2010 Oct 01
2
[LLVMdev] Illegal optimization in LLVM 2.8 during SelectionDAG? (Re: comparison pattern trouble - might be a bug in LLVM 2.8?)
On 1 Oct 2010, at 13:35, Bill Wendling wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote:
>
>> Bill Wendling wrote:
>>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers.
>>>>>
2012 Dec 18
2
[LLVMdev] Issue with instruction decoding / disassembly
I'm currently trying to get llvm-mc --disassemble working for the XCore backend. Up until recently there was no instruction encoding / decoding information on any of the XCore instructions so Im incrementally adding this information at the same time as adding tests for the disassembler. However I've run into a problem and I'm not sure of the best way to solve it. With some of the
2010 Oct 04
2
[LLVMdev] Illegal optimization in LLVM 2.8 during SelectionDAG
Bill Wendling wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote:
>
>> Bill Wendling wrote:
>>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've
2014 Nov 05
3
[LLVMdev] How to lower the intrinsic function 'llvm.objectsize'?
The documentation of LLVM says that "The llvm.objectsize intrinsic is
lowered to a constant representing the size of the object concerned". I'm
attempting to lower this intrinsic function to a constant in a pass. Below
is the code snippet that I wrote:
for (BasicBlock::iterator i = b.begin(), ie = b.end();
(i != ie) && (block_split == false);) {
IntrinsicInst *ii =
2019 Dec 31
3
Any significance for m_OneUse in (X / Y) / Z => X / (Y * Z) ??
Dear All,
The InstCombine pass performs the following transformation.
Z / (X / Y) => (Y * Z) / X
This is performed only when operand Op1 ( (X/Y) in this case) has only one
use in future. The code snippet is shown below.
if (match(Op1, m_OneUse(m_FDiv(m_Value(X), m_Value(Y)))) &&
(!isa<Constant>(Y) || !isa<Constant>(Op0))) {
// Z / (X / Y) => (Y *