similar to: Anyone ports Opus to CSR Kalimba DSP?

Eric Christopher wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Jonathan Roelofs > <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: >> >> On 7/9/14, 12:33 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> Any reason why you deleted code that isn't related? >>> >>> -eric >>> >>>> - enum SubArchType { >>>> - NoSubArch, >>>> -

Hello LLVMdev!! Yesterday I posted a patch request to the llvm-commits list requesting that someone could apply a patch to Triple.h and Triple.cpp for me. I didn't get any response so I wondered whether I should have posted to this list instead. My story is as follows: we are trying to get lldb/llvm support for CSRs range of Kalimba DSPs. Eventually we are planning to hire someone to

On 7/9/14, 12:33 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > Any reason why you deleted code that isn't related? > > -eric > >> - enum SubArchType { >> - NoSubArch, >> - >> - ARMSubArch_v8, >> - ARMSubArch_v7, >> - ARMSubArch_v7em, >> - ARMSubArch_v7m, >> - ARMSubArch_v7s, >> - ARMSubArch_v6, >> -

Hello Developers, I am considering using SPEEX on an embedded processor that is in fact a DSP with fixed point 24 bit resolution. This DSP is named 'Kalimba' and is present in CSR's product: BLUECORE5. I'm very interested if anybody can tell me if porting is possible (in fact if there are sufficient resources) for implementing a real-time encoding-decoding (duplex). I'm

Hi, We have some DSP architectures (kalimba) which have 24-bits as their "minimum addressable unit". So this means that the sizeof a char (and an int and a short for that matter) is 24-bits. I quickly read the posted link WritingAnLLVMBackend.html but did not see an obvious answer to the following question: Is it possible to write a backend that faithfully represents these

Hi Johnny, Thanks for this - particularly the tip about cfe-dev. I'm currently trying to coerce lldb to debug these type of architectures (our current toolchain already outputs good dwarf info). However, I'm struggling since lldb has just assumes that the size of a byte is universally 8-bits. At some stage, I *think* at some stage we'd like to derive a compiler, from the "same

Hello, I would like to read and write sparse matrices using the functions write.matrix.csr() and read.matrix.csr() of the package e1071. Writing is OK but reading back the matrix fails: x <- rnorm(100) m <- matrix(x, 10) m[m < 0.5] <- 0 m.csr <- as.matrix.csr(m) write.matrix.csr(m, "sparse.dat") read.matrix("sparse.dat") Error in initialize(value, ...)

Hi Patrik, Thanks for this note. It's encouraging to read there has been some provision made for non-8-bit bytes. I'm not a compiler/backend expert, (although maybe I'll need to be soon!), so I won't look at the patches right now, however may at some stage in the future myself or colleague may request these patches from yourself. Yes, our 24-bit architectures have non-power-of-2

Dear all, I'm training an SVM with default settings on a matrix csr (SparseM package). I realized that if I train the SVM with the (hopefully) equivalent matrix (Matrix package) representation, the returned models and predictions sometimes differ. I expected both representations of the same data to lead to the same results though. It could be that it is a scaling problem, because unscaled

Hi all, I want to transform a dCgMatrix from package Matrix into a matrix.csr from package SparseM, and I found out this link : http://stat.ethz.ch/R-manual/R-devel/library/Matrix/html/SparseM-conv.html But there's no informaion about usage/description/arguments, so how do I use this SparseM-conversions method ?? Is it a function ?? By the way I already tried function: as.spam.matrix.csr

Hello, The write.matrix.csr() function of the e1071 package contains a bug. Try the following: library(e1071) m <- 1 - diag(10) sm <- as.matrix.csr(m) write.matrix.csr(sm) The resulting file (out.dat) contains only the two lines below: 2:1 3:1 4:1 5:1 6:1 7:1 8:1 9:1 10:1 1:1 3:1 4:1 5:1 6:1 7:1 8:1 9:1 10:1 This is obviously wrong as the matrix m has 90 non-zero entries. The

When compiling C code below for AArach64, I saw that shrink-wrapping didn't happen due to the very early uses of CSRs in the entry block. So CSR spills/reloads are executed even when the early exit block is taken. int getI(int i); int foo(int *P, int i) { if (i>0) return P[i]; i = getI(i); return P[i]; } It's not that hard to find such cases where

When a sparse matrix is multiplied by a regular one, the result is usually not sparse. However, when matrix.csr is multiplied by a regular matrix in R, a matrix.csr is produced. Is there a way to avoid this? Thanks! -- Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on Ubuntu 12.04 (precise) X 11.0.11103000 http://www.childpsy.net/ http://palestinefacts.org http://truepeace.org

On 2017-10-27 19:50, Hal Finkel wrote: > On 10/27/2017 03:32 PM, Jun Lim via llvm-dev wrote: > >> When compiling C code below for AArach64, I saw that shrink-wrapping >> didn't happen due to the very early uses of CSRs in the entry block. >> So CSR spills/reloads are executed even when the early exit block is >> taken. >> >> int getI(int i); >>

On 2017-10-30 21:20, Hal Finkel wrote: > On 10/30/2017 12:20 PM, junbuml at codeaurora.org wrote: >> On 2017-10-27 19:50, Hal Finkel wrote: >>> On 10/27/2017 03:32 PM, Jun Lim via llvm-dev wrote: >>> >>>> When compiling C code below for AArach64, I saw that shrink-wrapping >>>> didn't happen due to the very early uses of CSRs in the entry

On 2017-11-10 07:47, Nemanja Ivanovic wrote: > One thing I thought about doing a while back and never really wrote a > POC for is the following: > - Make FirstCSRCost a property of the MachineBasicBlock (or create a > map of MBB* -> FirstCSRCost) > > - Implement a pre-RA pass that will populate the map as follows: > > - Identify all blocks with calls > > -

On 2017-11-14 17:22, Quentin Colombet wrote: > Hi, > > I think it is kind of artificial to tie the CSRCost with the presence > of calls. > I think I’ve already mentioned it in one of the review, but I > believe it would be better to differentiate when we want to use a CSR > to avoid spilling or to avoid splitting. CSR instead of spilling is > good, CSR instead of

I notice that no intrinsics have been defined for the CSRRW/CSRRS/CSRRC instructions. It would be convenient to have intrinsics for these to allow CSR manipulation directly from IR code. Interestingly, this seems to be true for PowerPC (no intrinsics for mfdcr/mtdcr) and X86 (no in/out) as well. Are there plans to define standard RISCV intrinsics for this? -------------- next part

> write.matrix.csr(mx, y = y, file = file) > table(y) 0 1 5194394 23487 $ cut -d' ' -f1 f | sort | uniq -c 23487 2 5194394 1 i.e., 0 is written as 1 and 1 is written as 2. why? is there a way to disable this? -- Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on Ubuntu 12.04 (precise) X 11.0.11103000 http://www.childpsy.net/ http://palestinefacts.org

On 2017-11-17 13:10, Quentin Colombet wrote: >> On Nov 16, 2017, at 2:31 PM, junbuml at codeaurora.org wrote: >> On 2017-11-14 17:22, Quentin Colombet wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> I think it is kind of artificial to tie the CSRCost with the >>> presence >>> of calls. >>> I think I’ve already mentioned it in one of the review, but I