similar to: [RFC][InlineCost] Modeling JumpThreading (or similar) in inline cost model

On 8/4/2017 2:06 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > A few notes: > I'm a bit surprised IPO copy/constant propagation doesn't get this > case, but i didn't look if the lattice supports variables. > In particular, in your example, given no other call sites, it should > eliminate the dead code. > (In a real program, it may require cloning). In the actual program

Hi, Coincidentally I've been working to optimize this same case last week. I was struggling a bit to determine where to put this functionality and eventually went for the pragmatic approach of creating an experimental pass. Probably not the eventual solution, but it may provide some useful input to the discussion here. Basically, I experimented with a 'pre-inlining-transform' pass

On 8/7/2017 1:02 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > Can someone fill me in on the issue with the dominator tree, > precisely, during inlining? > We now have the capability of quickly keeping it up to date without > too much trouble (it may require pushing it through a bunch of places, > but the actual changes to do should be easy). If I'm not mistaken (which I very well could be

Happy 2013! Can someone with more knowledge of edge case scoping/eval rules explain what is happening below? Happens in all the versions of R I have on hand. Behavior itself is confusing, but ?as.environment also provides no clue. The term used in that doc is 'search list', which is ambiguous, but the see also section mentions search(), so I would *think* that is what is intended.

On Aug 22, 2008, at 4:40 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > The LLVM passes are responsible to take appropriate actions based on > Function > Notes associated with function definition. For example, > > define void @fn1() notes("opt-size=1") { ... } > > The function fn1() is being optimized for size without losing > significant > performance. The inliner will

Hi - I'm having a really hard time w/understanding R's get function, and would appreciate any help with this. Specifically, I'm using a for loop to call a function. I'd like the function to have access to the variable being incremented in the for-loop, i.e. t.fn <- function() return( get( "i" ) ) t.fn2 <- function() { for ( i in 1:5 ) cat( t.fn(),

Here is a proposal that I mentioned sometime ago. Any thoughts,comments or suggestions on this proposal would be appreciated. - Devang // = = =---------------------------------------------------------------------- ===// // Function Notes (or Traits) // = = =---------------------------------------------------------------------- ===// This document describes the

> > Hello everyone, > > I have the following R code for a multivariable function: > > > > fn2<-function(x,y,z){(y+2*z)/(5*y-x*z)} > > > > fn2(-5,-2,3) > [1] 0.8 > > > > No problems. > > === > > If, however, I call the function using a vector substitution for the > arguments, R sees this as 3 separate calls to the function while

Dear List, I've been looking tirelessly for a solution to this dilemma but without success. Perhaps someone has an idea that will guide me in the right direction. Suppose I have the following data.frame: DF = data.frame(X = c(114.5508, 114.6468, 114.6596, 114.6957, 114.6828, 114.8903, 114.9519, 114.8842, 114.8579, 114.8489), Y = c(47.14094, 46.98874, 46.91235, 46.88265, 46.80584, 46.67022,

Hi All, I am a newbie to GPU programming. I wonder if anyone can help me with using GPU in .Call in R. Basically, I want to write a function that calcuates the sum of two double type vectors and implement this using GPU. My final goal is to make such an implementation callable from R. (a) First, I wrote a R-C interface handles the R object using .Call (saved as VecAdd_cuda.c

Hey everyone, I'm running stock LLVM 3.1 release. Both llc and opt programs have the -O# arguments, however it looks like the results are somewhat different. Here's a silly unoptimized bit of code which I'm generating from my LLVM-backed program ; ModuleID = 'foo' %Coord = type { double, double, double } define double @foo(%Coord*, %Coord*) nounwind uwtable ssp { entry:

On Aug 25, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2008, at 4:40 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > >> The LLVM passes are responsible to take appropriate actions based >> on Function >> Notes associated with function definition. For example, >> >> define void @fn1() notes("opt-size=1") { ... } >> >> The function fn1() is being

Hi, I made a simple test about aggregates in llvm IR. My simple LLVM code is running as expected under linux 32/64, but not under windows 32. After searched on the web on multiple return values, I'm still not sure if this test case can be flagged as the ABI issue. Or this would be a llvm code generator bug on window 32. The complete IR is attached as a text file and I checked the test with

Hi R-users, Does R has a topic on newton's method? Thank you for the info.

Hi Wei, this is a FAQ. The LLVM code generators do *not* try to produce ABI conformant code. Instead, your front-end must produce LLVM IR which is already ABI conformant. For example, on a platform where a function returning a struct should return it via a hidden pointer, the IR function should be declared with an explicit pointer argument for returning it; while on platforms for which it

Hi, On 13-11-15 19:51, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 02:46:52PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> So as discussed I've started working on a TGSI backend for >> llvm to use as a way to get compute going on nouveau (and other gpu-s). >> >> I'm still learning all the ins and outs of llvm so I do not have >> much to show

Thanks for reply! This is indeed annoying. I suspect that passing an pointer to the struct and using GEP instructions to access and modify the struct would work on all platforms. Is this true? Thanks, Wei On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Wei, this is a FAQ. The LLVM code generators do *not* try to produce > ABI > conformant code.

Full_Name: James Signorovitch Version: 2.2.1 OS: WinXP Submission from: (NULL) (134.174.182.203) In the code below, fn1() and fn2() fail with the messages given in the comments. Strangely, fn2() fails for all data sets I've tried except for those with 100 rows. The same errors occur if glm() is used in place of lm(), or if R 2.1.1 is used on a unix system. Thanks for looking into this.

Hello everyone, What is the best way to have R print a title and then skip a line (both without the [1] line preffix) when writing a function that prints an object (to the console)? Simplified example: fn3<-function(x,y){ c1<-cov(x,y) print(c1)} data1<-data.frame(age=rnorm(50),weight=rnorm(50)) attach(data1) fn3(age,weight) ===== How do I have R print a nicely formatted title

If a server side socket is bound to an address, but not in the listening state yet, incoming connection requests should receive a reset control packet in response. However, the function used to send the reset silently drops the reset packet if the sending socket isn't bound to a remote address (as is the case for a bound socket not yet in the listening state). This change fixes this by using