similar to: [LLVMdev] vectors of pointers (why not?)

On 02/08/2011 05:12 PM, Matt Pharr wrote: > I'm writing a compiler where I'd like to be able to (sometimes) represent lvalues of vectors (e.g.<4xfloat>) with vectors of pointers (e.g.<4xfloat *>). In this case, I'd like to be generating these vectors of pointers early on and later converting operations on them to a series of individual loads/stores with a later pass.

Duncan, Thanks for the quick review! Here is a short description (design) of where I am going with this patch: 1. Motivation: Vectors-of-pointers is the first step in supporting scatter/gather instructions (available in AVX2, for example). I believe that this feature was requested on the mailing list before. As mentioned by Hal Finkel earlier today, this feature is desired by autovectorizers as

I agree that a single vector index is sufficient for many cases. Matt Pharr (from the ISPC compiler), showed me an interesting case where there is a single pointer into an array. In this case we need to have two indices, where the first index is zero. Once the basic patch is in, we can start looking at adding support for arrays and multiple indices. Nadav -----Original Message----- From: David

Hey y''all, Are any folks planning on taking the ferry from Seattle to Vancouver (via Victoria)? I''ve never done it before so I have no idea how much of an adventure it is. Flights are a $100+ less to Seattle than Vancouver so the price works out the same or a bit less. My plan is to fly to Seattle (from Savannah, GA) on Tuesday to catch the early ferry on Wednesday

hello, i am trying to extract text using regex as follows: "* < <* this is my text > > " into: "this is my text" below what I did: varReg <- "* < <* this is my text > > " ## either this pattern patReg <- "(^[ <*]+)" ## or below patten patReg <- "([ > ]+$)" sub(patReg, '', varReg) depending

On Apr 27, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Apr 27, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Talin wrote: >> >>> I would certainly make use of this in my frontend. >>> >>> I suggest the names "getfield" and "setfield" for the two >>> operations, >>> >> >> I agree that

On Apr 24, 2012, at 5:36 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 24 April 2012 16:04, Matt Pharr <matt.pharr at gmail.com> wrote: >> When I generate debug information for a source file that has a number of static functions that are unused, all of the debugging metadata that I generated for them during initial compilation remains even after the source function definitions have been stripped

Thanks so much for your feedback Simon. I am not sure that what I am proposing here is at odds with what you're referring to (here and in the PR you linked). The key difference AFAICT is that the pattern I am referring to is probably more aptly described as "reducing scalarization" than as "vectorization". The reason I say that is that the inputs are vectors and the output

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Matt Pharr <matt.pharr at gmail.com> wrote: > r143524 changed ModuleLinker such that when linking a Module B into a Module A, any internal/private/... functions in B are only linked into A if there is a use of them in A.  This is problematic for my usage of module linking, where I'm basically linking a few modules together (some of which include

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Matt Pharr <matt.pharr at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm seeing some behavior that surprised me in writing an <8 x i1> vector to memory and reading it back.  (Specifically, the surprise is that I didn't get the original value back!).  This happens both with TOT and 2.9.  This program illustrates the issue: > > define i32 @foo() { >  %c =

Absolutely. We do it for scalars, so it would likely be a matter of just extending it. But that is one example. The issue of extracting elements, performing an operation on each element individually and then rebuilding the vector is likely more prevalent than that. At least I think that is the case, but I'll do some analysis to see if it is so or not. On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 6:15 PM Craig

On 24 April 2012 16:04, Matt Pharr <matt.pharr at gmail.com> wrote: > When I generate debug information for a source file that has a number of static functions that are unused, all of the debugging metadata that I generated for them during initial compilation remains even after the source function definitions have been stripped out of the IR.  (e.g. in the MD for DW_TAG_compile_unit's

Hi, Is there a package I can use to write to multiple sheets on xls file, other than using the paid version of xlsReadWrite package (xlsReadWritePro)? Thank you, Ferry

On 2008-04-27, at 15:56, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Apr 27, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > >> Chris Lattner wrote: >> >>> On Apr 27, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Talin wrote: >>> >>>> I would certainly make use of this in my frontend. >>>> >>>> I suggest the names "getfield" and "setfield" for the two

Noticed a few warnings while playing with klibc. Would be nice to have them fixed before pushing for inclusion in the kernel. usr/lib/readdir.c: In function `readdir': usr/lib/readdir.c:54: warning: use of cast expressions as lvalues is deprecated usr/lib/qsort.c: In function `qsort': usr/lib/qsort.c:33: warning: use of cast expressions as lvalues is deprecated usr/lib/sha1hash.c: In

I have added a few PPC-specific DAG combines in the past that follow this pattern on specific operations. Now that it appears that this would be useful to do on yet another operation, I'm wondering what people think about doing this in the target-independent DAG Combiner for any legal/custom operation on the target. TL; DR; The generic pattern would look like this: (build_vector (op

Hi, I am trying to aggregate the sum of my test data.frame as follow: testDF <- data.frame(v1 = c("a", "a", "a", "a", "a", "b", "b", "b", "b", "b", "c", "c", "c", "c", "c", "d", "d", "d", "d",

Hi, I have newbie question. Suppose I have the following data: temp <- data.frame(type1 = c("male", "female", "male", "female", "female"), type2 = c("low", "med", "high", "low", "med"), a = c(1,2,4, NA, 3), b = .... [TRUNCATED] temp type1 type2 a b c 1 male low 1 5 0 2 female

I'm working on some small improvements to SLPVectorizer.cpp so that it can deal with some tuple operations arising from Julia code. Being fairly new to LLVM, I could use some advice, particular from those familiar with the internals of SLPVectorizer. The motivation can be found in the Julia discussion https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/5857 . Here is an example of the kind of LLVM

The following IR implements the following nested loop: for (int i = start ; i < end ; ++i ) for (int p = 0 ; p < 4 ; ++p ) a[i*4+p] = b[i*4+p] + c[i*4+p]; define void @main(i64 %arg0, i64 %arg1, i1 %arg2, i64 %arg3, float* noalias %arg4, float* noalias %arg5, float* noalias %arg6) { entrypoint: br i1 %arg2, label %L0, label %L1 L0: