similar to: [LLVMdev] 64bit MRV problem: { float, float, float} -> { double, float }

Uh, sorry, did not pay attention where I was replying ;) Hey Duncan, I do not understand why this behaviour is required. What is the problem in having a function receive a single struct-parameter with three floats compared to two scalar parameters? source-code (C++): struct Test3Float { float a, b, c; }; void test(Test3Float param, Test3Float* result) { ... } bitcode:

Hi Ralf, > I do not understand why this behaviour is required. What is the problem > in having a function receive a single struct-parameter with three floats > compared to two scalar parameters? > > source-code (C++): > struct Test3Float { float a, b, c; }; > void test(Test3Float param, Test3Float* result) { ... } if you compile this with GCC, you will see that it too

Hey Duncan, hey everybody else, I just stumbled upon a problem in the latest llvm-gcc trunk which is related to my previous problem with the 64bit ABI and structs: Given the following code: struct float3 { float x, y, z; }; extern "C" void __attribute__((noinline)) test(float3 a, float3* res) { res->y = a.y; } int main(void) { float3 a; float3 res; test(a,

Hi Ralf, > llvm-gcc -c -emit-llvm -O3 produces this: > > %struct.float3 = type { float, float, float } > define void @test(double %a.0, float %a.1, %struct.float3* nocapture > %res) nounwind noinline { > entry: > %tmp8 = bitcast double %a.0 to i64 ; <i64> [#uses=1] > %tmp9 = zext i64 %tmp8 to i96 ; <i96> [#uses=1] >

Hey everybody, I am struggling to get rid of a problem which seems to be related to a multi-return value optimization: I generate bitcode for a c++-function with llvm-g++ which is then linked, transformed and optimized at runtime using LLVM. The function has quite a few parameters, including structs and struct-pointers with 3 float fields. The problem is, that I require the function to preserve

Hi Arushi, > I was tracking the issue discussed earlier, and I was wondering if a bug for the > missed optimizations, was ever filed, and if it has been fixed since? If so in > which llvm version, and more specifically which optimization pass. > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-January/028877.html this doesn't really sound like an LLVM optimizer issue, it

Hi, I was tracking the issue discussed earlier, and I was wondering if a bug for the missed optimizations, was ever filed, and if it has been fixed since? If so in which llvm version, and more specifically which optimization pass. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-January/028877.html Thanks, Regards, Arushi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

Hi Duncan, On 5/6/12 6:12 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Ralf, > >> Is there a clean way to attach metadata nodes to Arguments and/or >> BasicBlocks? > > not at the moment. Feel free to work on adding this functionality! I am looking into that now. I decided to temporarily go for the following syntax for BasicBlock metadata (subject to discussion): entry:

I'm in the process of collecting performance data on my platform and I thought I'd test the difference between double and float performance. So, I replaced all occurances of double in vorbis with float (as was suggested should work). I ended up hanging at: #0 0x0002695c in cacm283 () #1 0x00026dd0 in vorbis_lpc_to_lsp () #2 0x0001b3cc in forward () #3 0x0001cac8 in forward () #4

Hi, The last time the AVX backend was mentioned on this list seems to be from November 2010, so I would like to ask about the current status. Is anybody (e.g. at Cray?) still actively working on it? I have tried both LLVM 2.9 final and the latest trunk, and it seems like some trivial stuff is already working and produces nice code for code using <8 x float>. Unfortunately, the backend

Hi Ralf On Wednesday, June 1, 2011, Ralf Karrenberg <Chareos at gmx.de> wrote: > Hi, > > The last time the AVX backend was mentioned on this list seems to be > from November 2010, so I would like to ask about the current status. Is > anybody (e.g. at Cray?) still actively working on it? I don't think so! > I have tried both LLVM 2.9 final and the latest trunk, and it

On May 7, 2012, at 7:21 AM, Ralf Karrenberg <Chareos at gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Duncan, > > On 5/6/12 6:12 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: >> Hi Ralf, >> >>> Is there a clean way to attach metadata nodes to Arguments and/or >>> BasicBlocks? >> >> not at the moment. Feel free to work on adding this functionality! > > I am looking into that

If we were to implement the #unroll pragma, we would want to add metadata to loop headers. But, it's not a big deal since we can simply add this metadata to block terminators. -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Dan Gohman Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 00:58 To: Ralf Karrenberg Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu List

Indeed, Nadav. I also want to store information about loops as block-metadata of the loop header, but as you say this is easily doable by using block terminators. However, for the divergence analysis, we cannot use the terminators, because the properties of a block are determined by multiple criterions. If you do not want to introduce ugly dummy-calls to store that data (and write even more

So, I''m personally cool with this change (patch from #5454, applied in [4596]), and I''ll make it work for Oracle tomorrow. But just wondering if folks considered the performance impact of the change? From a simple test it seems that BigDecimal math is about twice as slow as using Floats.

Hi all I''m trying to figure out the best way to send the contents of a javascript array containing floats to the controller and have the controller correctly interpret it as an array of floats. So if I have var points = [1,2,3,4,5,6] I need to send this to the controller so I can points_rb = param[:points] or something similar thanks sab

Hey all, I am trying to run llvm's optimzation passes (basically as many as possible :p), but apparently there is no effect (dumped .ll-file before and after optimization -> identical). I am wondering if the method is just not optimizable in *any* way or if I am not invoking the stuff correctly. The system setup on a broad scale looks as follows: - custom LLVM-module pass - at some

Dear Members of Xapian Project, Sorry for troubling you this time. It can be witnessed that xapian will store Document values with serialization approach when given value types meet float/double. Such an approach is deployed on sort_key related fields as well, where the xapian requires KeyMaker::operator() must return an serialized float/dobule variable. Then heap sort comes and ranks

It appears to me based on my experiments with llvm-as that literal floating-point constants may be specified in the 64-bit IEEE hexadecimal format, but not in the 32-bit format. For instance, this file: target datalayout = "e-p:32:32:32-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32- i64:32:64-f32:32:32-f64:32:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64- f80:128:128" target triple =

I saw some mail go by a bit ago about doubles-vs-floats, but I seem to have lost it. I'm interested in rewriting the mdct code using Altivec on MacOS X. Altivec doesn't support doubles, though -- the only floating point vector type is single precision floats. Vorbis currently has doubles everywhere -- is this really necessary? Doubles are supposedly faster than floats in the PPC