similar to: [LLVMdev] Calling functions across modules. And those pesky vectors!

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 6000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Calling functions across modules. And those pesky vectors!"

2008 Jan 05
0
[LLVMdev] Calling functions across modules. And those pesky vectors!
Danny wrote: I made a > simple function which was just supposed to multiply two 3 component > float vectors and return the result: "Vectors must have a power of two length (1, 2, 4, 8, 16 ...)." - http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#t_vector > //Snip on: > VectorType *vType = VectorType::get(Type::FloatTy, 3); Nick
2008 Jan 04
0
[LLVMdev] Vectors and function calls across modules
Hey all, thanks for your prompt replies from before, now I have more questions! First, I've heard rumors about the ability to call functions across modules. I'm interested in learning how, but I haven't been able to figure it out yet. I tried just taking a Function* that I got from one module and calling it from another one, but that didn't work. How do I do that? Second,
2008 Jan 04
0
[LLVMdev] Calling functions across modules. And those pesky vectors!
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Danny wrote: > Second, I was under the impression that vector types were fairly well, > but I can't seem to get a simple function which takes in and returns > vectors to work properly. And I don't understand the error. I made a > simple function which was just supposed to multiply two 3 component > float vectors and return the result: Non-power-of-two
2008 Jan 07
1
[LLVMdev] Calling functions across modules. And those pesky vectors!
On Friday 04 January 2008 17:55:34 Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Danny wrote: > > Second, I was under the impression that vector types were fairly well, > > but I can't seem to get a simple function which takes in and returns > > vectors to work properly. And I don't understand the error. I made a > > simple function which was just supposed to
2007 Jul 20
5
[LLVMdev] Seg faulting on vector ops
Hola LLVMers, I'm looking to make use of the vectorization primitives in the Intel chip with the code we generate from LLVM and so I've started experimenting with it. What is the state of the machine code generated for vectors? In my tinkering, I seem to be getting some wonky machine instructions, but I'm most likely just doing something wrong and I'm hoping you can set me in
2007 Jul 21
0
[LLVMdev] Seg faulting on vector ops
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Chuck Rose III wrote: > I'm looking to make use of the vectorization primitives in the Intel > chip with the code we generate from LLVM and so I've started > experimenting with it. What is the state of the machine code generated > for vectors? In my tinkering, I seem to be getting some wonky machine > instructions, but I'm most likely just doing
2007 Jul 24
2
[LLVMdev] Seg faulting on vector ops
Hrm. This problem shouldn't be target specific. I am pretty sure prologue / epilogue inserter aligns stack correctly if there are stack objects with greater than default stack alignment requirement. Seems to be the initial alloca() instruction should specify 16 byte alignment? Evan On Jul 21, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Chuck Rose III wrote:
2011 Dec 02
5
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On 11/23/2011 05:52 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 21:22 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: >> > On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 11:55 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: >>> > > Tobias, >>> > > >>> > > I've attached an updated patch. It contains a few bug fixes and many >>> > > (refactoring and coding-convention) changes inspired
2007 Oct 12
3
collapsing a data frame
Trying to find a quick/slick/easily interpretable way to collapse a data set. Suppose I have a data set that looks like this: h <- structure(list(INDEX = structure(1:6, .Label = c("1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6"), class = "factor"), TICKS = c(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3 ), BROOD = structure(c(1L, 1L, 2L, 3L, 3L, 3L), .Label =
2019 Sep 23
2
What is the best way to loop over an ALTREP vector?
Sorry for post a lot of things, for the first part of code, I copied my C++ iter macro by mistake(and you can see an explicit type casting). Here is the macro definition from R_exts/Itermacros.h #define ITERATE_BY_REGION_PARTIAL(sx, px, idx, nb, etype, vtype, \ strt, nfull, expr) do { \ * const** etype *px = DATAPTR_OR_NULL(sx); *
2011 Nov 23
0
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 21:22 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 11:55 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > > Tobias, > > > > I've attached an updated patch. It contains a few bug fixes and many > > (refactoring and coding-convention) changes inspired by your comments. > > > > I'm currently trying to fix the bug responsible for causing a compile
2019 Sep 24
2
What is the best way to loop over an ALTREP vector?
Hi Bob, Thanks for sending around the link to that. It looks mostly right and looks like a useful onramp. There are a few things to watch out for though (I've cc'ed Romain so he's aware of these comments). @romain I hope you taake the following comments as they are intended, as help rather than attacks. The largest issue I see is that the contract for Get_region is that it *populates
2007 Jul 20
0
[LLVMdev] Seg faulting on vector ops
Hi Chuck! On Jul 20, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Chuck Rose III wrote: > Hola LLVMers, > > > > I’m looking to make use of the vectorization primitives in the > Intel chip with the code we generate from LLVM and so I’ve started > experimenting with it. What is the state of the machine code > generated for vectors? In my tinkering, I seem to be getting some > wonky
2007 Jul 26
0
[LLVMdev] Seg faulting on vector ops
I am fairly certain this is right. Chuck, can you do a quick experiment for me? Go back to your original code but make sure the alloca instruction specify 16-byte alignment. The code should work. If not, please file a bug. Thanks, Evan On Jul 24, 2007, at 1:58 PM, Evan Cheng wrote: > Hrm. This problem shouldn't be target specific. I am pretty sure > prologue / epilogue inserter
2019 Oct 23
2
Unexpected behavior when using macro to loop over vector
Hi all, I found an unexpected behavior when I was trying to use the macro defined in "R_ext/Itermacros.h" to loop over an atomic vector. Here is a minimum example: C++ code ``` #include "R_ext/Itermacros.h" #define GET_REGION_BUFSIZE 2 //Redefine the macro since C++ is not happy with the implicit type conversion #define ITERATE_BY_REGION_PARTIAL(sx, px, idx, nb, etype,
2011 Nov 22
5
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 11:55 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > Tobias, > > I've attached an updated patch. It contains a few bug fixes and many > (refactoring and coding-convention) changes inspired by your comments. > > I'm currently trying to fix the bug responsible for causing a compile > failure when compiling >
2011 Nov 17
2
[LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] [PATCH] BasicBlock Autovectorization Pass
On 11/17/2011 12:38 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > Tobias, et al., > > Attached is the my autovectorization pass. Very nice. Will you be at the developer summit? Maybe we could discuss the integration there? Here a first review of the source code. > diff --git a/docs/Passes.html b/docs/Passes.html > index 5c42f3f..076effa 100644 > --- a/docs/Passes.html > +++ b/docs/Passes.html
2019 Oct 25
2
Unexpected behavior when using macro to loop over vector
On 10/25/19 11:01 AM, Tomas Kalibera wrote: > On 10/23/19 6:45 AM, Wang Jiefei wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I found an unexpected behavior when I was trying to use the macro >> defined >> in "R_ext/Itermacros.h"? to loop over an atomic vector. Here is a >> minimum >> example: >> >> C++ code >> ``` >> #include
2016 Oct 24
2
RFC: (Co-)Convergent functions and uniform function parameters
Hi all, Some brain-storming on an issue with SPMD/SIMT backend support where I think some additional IR attributes would be useful. Sorry for the somewhat long mail; the short version of my current thinking is that I would like to have the following: 1) convergent: a call to a function with this attribute cannot be moved to have additional control dependencies; i.e., moving it from A to B is
2016 Oct 24
2
RFC: (Co-)Convergent functions and uniform function parameters
On 24.10.2016 21:54, Mehdi Amini wrote: >> On Oct 24, 2016, at 12:38 PM, Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Some brain-storming on an issue with SPMD/SIMT backend support where I think some additional IR attributes would be useful. Sorry for the somewhat long mail; the short version of my current thinking is that I would like to have the following: