similar to: [LLVMdev] slashdoted!

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 20000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] slashdoted!"

2017 Oct 02
2
Where did Alive go?
Sorry, we really screwed up the server migration. Alive is now working again and should be fixed for good :) Permalinks are still missing; we are working on recovering those. Apologies again for all the trouble. Nuno -----Original Message----- From: Sanjay Patel Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Where did Alive go? I still can't use the web app - spins for
2017 Sep 22
2
Where did Alive go?
Craig I know it's a pain compared to the web interface but Alive is pretty easy to install and run from a shell. John On 9/22/17 11:41 AM, Craig Topper via llvm-dev wrote: > And now rise4fun.com <http://rise4fun.com> doesn't work at all? > > ~Craig > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt > <mailto:nunoplopes at
2017 Sep 22
0
Where did Alive go?
And now rise4fun.com doesn't work at all? ~Craig On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Alive is now working again. There was a migration to a new server. > Permalinks are still being copied from backup; they will work again > shortly as well. (I would probably not create new ones since they may get > replaced while the copy is in
2017 Sep 20
2
Where did Alive go?
Alive is now working again. There was a migration to a new server. Permalinks are still being copied from backup; they will work again shortly as well. (I would probably not create new ones since they may get replaced while the copy is in flux). Nuno Citando Nuno Lopes via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > I'm investigating; thanks for the heads up. Sorry for the
2018 Mar 01
2
how to simplify FP ops with an undef operand?
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:08 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > We can do "add %x, undef" => "undef" because for any value of %x, we can > always find a value that when added to %x produces any value in the domain > of integers. > > This is not the case with floats since with some inputs, e.g., NaNs, we > are not able to produce some
2018 Mar 01
0
how to simplify FP ops with an undef operand?
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:08 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: >> We can do "add %x, undef" => "undef" because for any value of %x, we can >> always find a value that when added to %x produces any value in the >> domain of integers. >> >> This is not the case with floats since with some inputs, e.g., NaNs, we
2018 Mar 03
1
[GSOC 2018] Improve function attribute inference
Definitely have a look at the current analyses: - llvm/Transforms/IPO/FunctionAttrs.cpp - llvm/Transforms/IPO/InferFunctionAttrs.cpp Also, study the semantics of these attributes, starting with the docs: http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#function-attributes Also, grep the LLVM sources for test cases that use the attributes to see examples on how they are used for optimization. Finally, have a
2012 Jun 04
2
[LLVMdev] alloc_size metadata
On Jun 4, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > So here is a new proposal: > > !0 = metadata !{ alloc_siz_fn, offset_fn, parameters* } The parameters are a separate metadata array or the alloc_size metadata is variable length? You'll probably want to write up some docs for the website on how this is supposed to be laid out and work. -eric
2012 Jun 04
0
[LLVMdev] alloc_size metadata
Quoting Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com>: > On Jun 4, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > >> So here is a new proposal: >> >> !0 = metadata !{ alloc_siz_fn, offset_fn, parameters* } > > The parameters are a separate metadata array or the alloc_size metadata > is variable length? Variable length. I think that's
2017 Jul 16
4
PartialAlias: different start addresses
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 12:45 PM Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > >On 07/15/2017 04:51 AM, Nuno Lopes wrote: > >>> On 07/14/2017 04:37 PM, Nuno Lopes wrote: > >>>> Thank you all for your replies. > >>>> So here seems to be an agreement that the documentation for > >>>> PartialAlias is incorrect. > >>>>
2018 Mar 01
2
how to simplify FP ops with an undef operand?
Other than finding someone to volunteer for the work required, is there a reason not to add a NaN the IR? I can already ask a ConstantFP if it is a NaN. Why not make that easier to represent? -----Original Message----- From: Nuno Lopes [mailto:nunoplopes at sapo.pt] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 2:31 PM To: David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com> Cc: Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor
2008 Sep 16
0
[LLVMdev] missed optimizations
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Hi, > This kind of transformation isn't currently done by LLVM (note that here > this pass is only removing case statements. other transformations are not of > my responsibility :). > The patch is available at > http://web.ist.utl.pt/nuno.lopes/llvm_function_ret_infer.txt > I would love to
2008 Sep 16
2
[LLVMdev] missed optimizations
Hi, As a follow up of this thread I've made a patch that implements a simple approach to propagate the function return values as described previously. It can transform e.g. the following program: define i32 @f(...) nounwind { (...) %cond = select i1 %tobool, i32 2, i32 3 ; <i32> [#uses=1] ret i32 %cond } define i32 @g(...) nounwind { entry: %call = call i32 (...)* @f() ;
2016 Jun 09
2
[GSoC 2016] Capture Tracking Improvements - BackgroundInformation
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > (+CC LLVM dev - I'd dropped it in my original reply unintentionally and > just noticed.) > > On 06/07/2016 01:35 PM, Philip Reames wrote: > >> (This was written in a rush. There may be mistakes; if so I'll try to >> correct later.) >> >> At the
2019 Feb 25
3
funnel shift, select, and poison
We have these transforms from funnel shift to a simpler shift op: // fshl(X, 0, C) -> shl X, C // fshl(X, undef, C) -> shl X, C // fshl(0, X, C) -> lshr X, (BW-C) // fshl(undef, X, C) -> lshr X, (BW-C) These were part of: https://reviews.llvm.org/D54778 In all cases, one operand must be 0 or undef and the shift amount is a constant, so I think these are safe.
2019 Feb 26
2
funnel shift, select, and poison
If I got poison propagation right, it's probably only by luck! Hopefully, the funnel shift bug is fixed here: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL354905 Nuno, IIUC this means that you do *not* need to change the funnel shift semantics in Alive. So I think that means we're still on track to go with John's suggestion that only select and phi can block poison? (I don't know of any
2015 Jun 27
4
[LLVMdev] readonly and infinite loops
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > At least in C/C++ that's UB, yes. So you cannot map every turing machine to a valid C/C++ program then. :) Also, does this mean that "daemon" programs that run continuously till they're killed by the OS (using a mechanism that is not visible in C) are effectively undefined? -- Sanjoy >
2017 Jul 16
2
PartialAlias: different start addresses
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 12:45 PM Nuno Lopes wrote: >>> >>>> On 07/15/2017 04:51 AM, Nuno Lopes wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 07/14/2017 04:37 PM, Nuno Lopes wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you all for your replies.
2002 Jul 19
2
OT slashdoted BEFORE release?!?!
Dammit, Why can't slashdot at least confirm that A) its released and B) its MIRRORED BEFORE setting loose the /.'ers http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/19/1320219&mode=thread&tid=141 Myles <p>--- >8 ---- List archives: http://www.xiph.org/archives/ Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/ To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to
2018 Mar 02
0
[GSOC 2018] Improve function attribute inference
Hi Nuno, Thanks. Appreciate if I can get some specific pointers to related code or documentation that I could start looking to to get myself oriented. I just started looking to in to lib/Analysis a bit. Regards Buddhika On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:50 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Eric: thanks for bringing this to my attention; I somehow missed this > email. >