similar to: [LLVMdev] Problem returning aggregate struct (complex number) by value

Hi Andrew, > %0 = type { float, float } > > define %0 @test600() { > entry: > ret %0 { float 4.200000e+01, float 3.500000e+01 } > } > > > Running that through llc, the x86-64 assembly looks like this (abbreviated): unfortunately the x86-64 ABI says that complex numbers are *not* passed the same as a struct containing two floats. Your LLVM IR is not ABI conformant

Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Andrew, > >> %0 = type { float, float } >> >> define %0 @test600() { >> entry: >> ret %0 { float 4.200000e+01, float 3.500000e+01 } >> } >> >> >> Running that through llc, the x86-64 assembly looks like this (abbreviated): > > unfortunately the x86-64 ABI says that complex numbers are *not* passed the

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Diego, > > It looks like the problem is with the code in the vectorizer that tries to estimate the most profitable vectorization factor: > >> LV: Found an estimated cost of 6 for VF 2 For instruction: %3 = load >> i64* %state, align 8, !dbg !58, !tbaa !61 > > > It looks like a

Hi, I've battled with this now for a good many hours, and I was wondering if someone could point in the right direction. What I want to do is with the kaleidoscope tutorial code, take the IR from a run where I've just done " def test(x) 42.0*x; " resulting in the file test.ll " ; ModuleID = 'my cool jit' define double @test(double %x) { entry: %multmp = fmul

HI all, in C/C++, arrays and matrices often are passed as pointer so functions. Suppose I'd like to write a pass operating on arrays , for example an array of doubles passed via double * and checking for the type i will identify a pointer to double (isAggregateType()=false). As this style of passing arrays using pointers is widely used, I wonder if there is any chance to identify a pointer

Hi, I decided to implement a sanitizer that tracks the active member, and reports reads from inactive members. e.g.: struct S { union { long l; char s[42]; double d; }; }; void f() { S s; s.d = 42.0; if (s.l > 100) // fire here ; } My current implementation is naïve (also possibly wrong), and doesn't care about "special

Am Mi., 24. Juni 2020 um 10:12 Uhr schrieb David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>: > > As mentioned in the Differential, generating the tests automatically > > will lose information about what actually is intended to be tested, > > Agreed - and I didn't mean to suggest tests should be automatically > generated. I work pretty hard in code reviews to encourage tests to

Sounds like the select lowering issue is definitely separate from the FENV work. Is there a bug report with a C or IR example? You want to generate compare and branch instead of a cmov for something like this? int foo(float x) { if (x < 42.0f) return x; return 12; } define i32 @foo(float %x) { %cmp = fcmp olt float %x, 4.200000e+01 %conv = fptosi float %x to i32 %ret = select

Thanks, Andy. I'm not sure how to solve that or my case given the DAG's basic-block limit. Probably CodeGenPrepare or SelectionDAGBuilder...or we wait until after isel and try to split it up in a machine instruction pass. I filed my example here: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33013 Feel free to comment there and/or open a new bug for the FP_TO_UINT case. On Thu, May 11, 2017 at

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > Was the vectorizer successful in unrolling the loop in quantum_sigma_x? I > wonder if 'size’ is typically high or low. No. The vectorizer stated that it wasn't going to bother with the loop because it wasn't profitable. Specifically: LV: Checking a loop in "quantum_sigma_x" LV: Found a

I've been trying to get my head around using matrices in calls to .C(). As an exercise I wrote some code to calculate the product of two matrices. (Well, it makes it easy to check if one is getting the right answer!) After obtaining some advice from a Certain Very Wise Person at Oxford, (to find out how to deal with array indexing in C functions called from elsewhere) I wrote the following

I am using 2.2.0 If the QR decomposition of an N*M matrix is such that the pivoting order is not 1:M, Q%*%R does not result in the original matrix but in a matrix with the columns permuted. This is clearly intentional, and probably to be expected if pivoting is used --- chol() behaves in the same manner (it would perhaps be nice if the qr help page made that clear in the same way that the chol()

Hi Andy, I’m interested to try out your patches… I understand the scope of FENV_ACCESS is relatively wide, however I’m still curious if you managed to figure out how to prevent the SelectionDAGLegalize::ExpandNode() FP_TO_UINT lowering of the FPToUI intrinsic from producing the predicate logic that incorrectly sets the floating point accrued exceptions due to unconditional execution of the

On 7/1/20 12:40 AM, Michael Kruse via llvm-dev wrote: > To illustrate some difficulties with FileCheck, lets make a > non-semantic change in LLVM: > >     --- a/llvm/lib/Analysis/VectorUtils.cpp >     +++ b/llvm/lib/Analysis/VectorUtils.cpp >     @@ -642,8 +642,8 @@ MDNode *llvm::uniteAccessGroups(MDNode > *AccGroups1, MDNode *AccGroups2) { >          return AccGroups1;

I am trying to simulate draws from a multivariate normal using mvrnorm, and am getting the following error message: Error in mu + eS$vectors %*% diag(sqrt(pmax(ev, 0)), p) %*% t(X) : non-conformable arrays I do not understand why I am getting this message, since the vector of means I am giving to the function is 13 by 1 and the variance matrix I am giving to the function is 13

The test as written is fragile because it requires a certain ordering. If the output order is not important, use CHECK-DAG rather than CHECK. This would be a failure to understand the testing tool. My experience, over a 40-year career, is that good software developers are generally not very good test-writers. These are different skills and good testing is frequently not taught. It’s easy to