similar to: [LLVMdev] Alignment of vectors

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 6:45 AM, Benedict Gaster <benedict.gaster at amd.com> wrote: > Consider the following C code: > > typedef __attribute__(( ext_vector_type(2) )) float float2; > typedef __attribute__(( ext_vector_type(2) )) __attribute__(( aligned(4) )) AFAIK, the aligned attribute doesn't do anything on a typedef of anything other than a struct/union type in either

Hi, Comments inline. Ben On 18/07/2008 16:30, "Eli Friedman" <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 6:45 AM, Benedict Gaster > <benedict.gaster at amd.com> wrote: >> Consider the following C code: >> >> typedef __attribute__(( ext_vector_type(2) )) float float2; >> typedef __attribute__(( ext_vector_type(2) ))

Hi R-users, I'm quite new to R and trying to learn the basics. I have a following problem concerning the convertion of array object into data frame. I have made following data sets tmp1 <- rnorm(100) tmp2 <- gl(10,2,length=100) tmp3 <- as.data.frame(cbind(tmp1,tmp2)) tmp3.sum <- tapply(tmp3$tmp1,tmp3$tmp2,sum) tmp3.sum <- as.data.frame(tapply(tmp1,tmp2,sum)) and I want the

On Jan 29, 2013, at 12:51 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > > # ignore assumed dependences. > for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { > tmp1 = A[3i+1]; > tmp2 = A[3i+2]; > tmp3 = tmp1 + tmp2; > A[3i] = tmp3; > } > > Now I apply for whatever reason a partial reg2mem transformation. > > float tmp3[1]; > > # ignore assumed

Dear all, The function f() below is a function of m1 and m2, both of which are matrices with 3 rows. The function works sequentially one row after another. So altogether there are three stages. I am trying to update the coding to write a generic function that will work for arbitrary k stages. I am hoping to get some suggestion and help. Thanks so much! Hanna ##x, y are two

Hello R experts, I'd like to studentize a matrix (tmp1) by column using apply() function and skip some specific values such as zeros in the example below to tmp2 but not tmp3. I used the script below and only can get a matrix tmp3. Could you please help me to studentize the matrix (tmp1) without changing the zeros and generate a new matrix tmp2? Thanks, Joshua tmp1 [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4]

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Sebastien DELDON-GNB <sebastien.deldon at st.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to know if LLVM Neon intrinsics are designed to support only 'Legal' types for NEON units. > Using llc -march=arm -mcpu=cortex-a9 vmax4.ll -o vmax4.s on following ll code: > > > ; ModuleID = 'vmax.ll' > target datalayout =

Hi all, I would like to know if LLVM Neon intrinsics are designed to support only 'Legal' types for NEON units. Using llc -march=arm -mcpu=cortex-a9 vmax4.ll -o vmax4.s on following ll code: ; ModuleID = 'vmax.ll' target datalayout = "e-p:32:32:32-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:64:64-f32:32:32-f64:64:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-n32" target triple =

On 01/29/2013 07:58 PM, Nadav Rotem wrote: > > On Jan 29, 2013, at 12:51 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es > <mailto:tobias at grosser.es>> wrote: > >> >> # ignore assumed dependences. >> for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { >> tmp1 = A[3i+1]; >> tmp2 = A[3i+2]; >> tmp3 = tmp1 + tmp2; >> A[3i] = tmp3; >> } >>

What? Yet another EH proposal?! This one is different from the others in that I'm planning to start implementing this shortly. But I want your feedback! I've all ready gotten a lot of feedback from Chris, John, Jim, Eric, and many others. Now is your turn! Please read this proposal and send me your comments, suggestions, and concerns. -bw

Hi Eli, Thanks for the answer, it clarifies the situation for me. Do you know if there is Pass in LLVM that could be adapted to 'legalize' intrinsics calls ? Or shall I define my own intrinsics for non supported types ? Best Regards Seb ________________________________________ De : Eli Friedman [eli.friedman at gmail.com] Date d'envoi : vendredi 21 septembre 2012 11:54 À : Sebastien

On 01/28/2013 12:58 PM, Pekka Jääskeläinen wrote: > Hi, > > Attached is a patch which uses a simple "parallel_loop" metadata attached > to the loop branch instruction in the loop latch for skipping > cross-iteration > memory dependency checking in the LoopVectorizer. This was briefly > discussed > in the email thread "LoopVectorizer in OpenCL C work group

Hi, Wrong UIDs are returned from mailbox_transaction_commit_get_uids() in dovecot-1.1.rc3. The problem is in: int mailbox_transaction_commit(struct mailbox_transaction_context **t) { uint32_t tmp; return mailbox_transaction_commit_get_uids(t, &tmp, &tmp, &tmp); } It should be: int mailbox_transaction_commit(struct mailbox_transaction_context **t) { uint32_t tmp1,

Some of the optimizations that the first DAG combine performs is counter productive for our 8-bit target. For example in: // I dropped the types because they are irrelevant. // Excuse me for changing the syntax... store %tmp1, %var %tmp2 = load %var %tmp4 = add %tmp3, %tmp2 Since load is the only user of var and since var has just be stored to, it assumes that %tmp1 is alive and it goes ahead

Hi, I have two problems regarding the llvm.stackrestore intrinsic. I'm running on 3.0, but a quick test on trunk also showed the same behavior. First problem: --------------- I have code like: tmp1 = call llvm.stacksave() tmp2 = alloca [do some stuff with tmp2] call llvm.stackrestore(tmp1) [some other stuff] tmp3 = call llvm.stacksave() tmp4 = alloca [do some stuff

Hi, I'm using LLVM 2.7 right now, and I found "opt -std-compile-opts" has missed some opportunities for optimization: define void @spa.main() readonly { entry: %tmp = load i32* @dst-ip ; <i32> [#uses=3] %tmp1 = and i32 %tmp, -16777216 ; <i32> [#uses=1] %tmp2 = icmp eq i32 %tmp1, 167772160 ; <i1> [#uses=2]

On Sep 21, 2012, at 2:58 AM, Sebastien DELDON-GNB <sebastien.deldon at st.com> wrote: > Hi Eli, > > Thanks for the answer, it clarifies the situation for me. Do you know if there is Pass in LLVM that could be adapted to 'legalize' intrinsics calls ? > Or shall I define my own intrinsics for non supported types ? You should never generate these sorts of intrinsics with

I can't think of any workaround? this optimization eliminates so much information that if we want to retrieve back, it will take a lot of processing and may not necessarily be able to retrieve the lost information for all cases. Besides, why does the generic part of llvm have to force an optimization that is counter productive to some targets? If there are other phases that do the same

Hi! I'm currently working on developing a new technique for alias analysis and wish to know how to compare it's results to the results that LLVM gets. The algorithm I have operates on LLVM assembly (I wrote the analysis in Haskell, so unfortunately I can't embed it into LLVM very easily). I tried using the option to print alias sets, but I'm not quite sure how to interpret the

I have been running into difficulties with dispatching on an S4 class defined in the SparseM package, when the method calls are inside a function passed as the f= argument to optimize() in functions in the spdep package. The S4 methods are typically defined as: setMethod("det","matrix.csr", function(x, ...) det(chol(x))^2) that is within setMethod() rather than by name before