similar to: [LLVMdev] Effective Sign Extension Elimination

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Bill Wendling wrote: > Now that we have sign/zero extensions, have people given thought to > the elimination of these? There's a paper I downloaded a few years > ago called "Effective Sign Extension Elimination" by M. Kawahito, H. > Komatsu, and T. Nakatani. Sign extension elimination is most useful in the backend, when targeting processors like

C ABI requires function parameters and return value to be promoted to 32-bit. Perhaps we can eliminate these extensions at IPO time if both caller and callee agrees to break the ABI convention? This can have minor performance impact on targets with sub-registers (e.g. x86). Evan On Jan 4, 2007, at 2:02 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Bill Wendling wrote: >> Now

Dear R gurus I am running a GLMM that looks at whether chimpanzees spend time in shade more than sun (response variable 'y': used cbind() on counts in the sun and shade) based on the time of day (Time) and the availability of shade (Tertile). I've included some random factors too which are the chimpanzee in question (Individual) and where they are in a given area (Zone). There are

Hi All. I've run into a problem with the plinear algorithm in nls that is confusing me. Assume the following reaction time data over 15 trials for a single unit. Trials are coded from 0-14 so that the intercept represents reaction time in the first trial. trl RT 0 1132.0 1 630.5 2 1371.5 3 704.0 4 488.5 5 575.5 6 613.0 7 824.5 8 509.0 9

Dear all: Could anyone please provide some R codes to plot the below survival data to compare two groups (0 vs 1) after 2 simulations (TRL)? need 95% prediction interval on the plot from these 2 trials. I would like to simulate 1000 trials later. Thanks a lot for your great help and consideration! yan TRL ID ECOG BASE PTR8 GROUP POP ST ind 1 1 1 1 2.2636717 0.255634126 1 1 99.4 F 3 1 2 1

I was wondering if there's any non-executable stack patch for FreeBSD's kernel. I searched in google but all I got was some questions in freebsd-security back from 2001 and an answer saying someone heard about a project like this, but no information at all. Is there any patch like PaX or Openwall available for FreeBSD? I dont want to discuss if its useless or not since there're a

Hi mailinglist members, I’m actually working on a time series prediction and my current approach is to decompose the series first into a trend, a seasonal component and a remainder. Therefore I’m using the stl() function. But I’m wondering how to get the single components in order to predict the particular fitted series’. This code snippet illustrates my problem: series <-

When doing phi elimination, does one have to communicate with the stack space at all? The problem I see is two distinctly different registers may have two distinctly different stack spaces. When these registers are combined in a phi, the values the registers point to needs to be moved, combined, or otherwise taken care of. I understand this is the job of the stack space colorer, but when doing phi

Hi, The PHI elimination pass calls the function copyRegToReg for copy placement and then later tries to setkill to the temporary virtual register used in copy placement. For this setkill action it looks only in one instruction (last instruction for copyRegToReg) for virtual register with no use. My target has only one register and I can't do copyRegToReg in one instruction only. So I

At the moment, phi elimination happens before register allocation, so there can be no phis between memory locations. Cameron On Oct 5, 2010, at 4:19 PM, Jeff Kunkel wrote: > When doing phi elimination, does one have to communicate with the > stack space at all? The problem I see is two distinctly different > registers may have two distinctly different stack spaces. When these >

My pass in LLVM generates an IR like this %5 = icmp eq i32 %4, 0 %7 = or i1 %5, %5 ;. . . Since the 'or' instruction is actually not needed(dead code), I replaced all occurences of %7 with %5. Now, the 'or' instruction should get deleted. How can I call Dead Code Elimination pass of LLVM from my pass or is there any method to remove that 'or' instruction? Thank you.

I've started using the strong PHI elimination pass, and it seems to work beautifully (producing much better placement of copy instructions) - though I'm seeing that it triggers an assert in debug+assert builds. The assertion is on line 1388 of RegisterCoalescer.C. Attached is the -debug output from the machine optimization part of the optimizer, for the simplest test case I could

I'm the person who wrote it, and it's not really maintained, as we decided we wanted to go in a different direction long-term by having fewer passes making independent coalescing decisions rather than more. At the time I stopped working on it, it worked fine on x86 but caused problems with armv7 NEON code. If you file a PR with a test case, I am happy to take a quick look and try to fix

First, I hope that this message is not considered flame bait. As someone who has used FreeBSD for for 5+ years now, I have a genuine interest in the integrity of our source code. Second, I hope that this message is not taken as any form of insult or finger pointing. Software without bugs does not exist, and I think we all know that. Acknowledging that point and working to mitigate the risks

I will try to make a standalone test case but the one that is failing uses a custom back end, so it's not really portable. So is the plan to have the strong PHI elimination behavior rolled into other passes? Andrew On 06/20/2012 06:54 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote: > I'm the person who wrote it, and it's not really maintained, as we decided we wanted to go in a different direction

Can you describe quickly (or point to references for the inclined) what this pass will do and what other stuff it might enable for LLVM? I'm just curious. -- Christopher Lamb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080324/46829334/attachment.html>

Good Afternoon. I am a Computer Science undergraduate student in Brazil and as completion of course work, I am developing an register allocator, using the infrastructure of the LLVM. To accomplish this task, I have based my implementation in allocators already implemented in LLVM. But a question came to me while I was researching in books and articles of compiler theory and own documentation of

When I run R CMD check on the survival package I invariably get a note: ... * checking for file ?survival/DESCRIPTION? ... OK * this is package ?survival? version ?3.2-6? * checking CRAN incoming feasibility ... NOTE Maintainer: ?Terry M Therneau <therneau.terry at mayo.edu>? ... This is sufficient for the auto-check process to return the following failure message: Dear maintainer,

Hi all, I'm interested in the impact of representing code via intrinsic functions, in contrast to via an instruction, when it comes to performing dead instruction/code elimination. As a concrete example, lets consider the simple case of the llvm.*.with.overflow.* intrinsics. If I have some sequence (> 1) of llvm.*.with.overflow.* intrinsics, as in the form of: @global = global i32 0

On May 19, 2010, at 7:07 AM, o.j.sivart at gmail.com wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm interested in the impact of representing code via intrinsic functions, in contrast to via an instruction, when it comes to performing dead instruction/code elimination. As a concrete example, lets consider the simple case of the llvm.*.with.overflow.* intrinsics. > > If I have some sequence (> 1)