similar to: [LLVMdev] Optimization of array access

Where does the -time-passes option say the time is going? Sent from my iPhone On Nov 21, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Michael Smith <Michael.Smith at synopsys.com> wrote: > I’ve attached a 2 examples of patterns for updating an array. They’re simplified examples of some code generation I’m doing where I need to pass a large, unknown number of arguments (ints, doubles, pointers to other

Dead Code Elimination. I’m going to try re-working it following some of the insights Don Quixote provided. From: Cameron Zwarich [mailto:zwarich at apple.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 12:17 PM To: Michael Smith Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Optimization of array access Where does the -time-passes option say the time is going? Sent from my iPhone On Nov 21, 2011, at

Sorry, Dead Store Elimination. From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Smith Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 12:20 PM To: Cameron Zwarich Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Optimization of array access Dead Code Elimination. I’m going to try re-working it following some of the insights Don Quixote provided. From: Cameron

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Michael Smith <Michael.Smith at synopsys.com> wrote: > Sorry, Dead Store Elimination. Hmm... does tweaking the value of BlockScanLimit in MemoryDependenceAnalysis.cpp help? -Eli > > > > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of Michael Smith > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 12:20 PM

Tried 5 and 50, doesn't seem to make any difference. -----Original Message----- From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 1:20 PM To: Michael Smith Cc: Cameron Zwarich; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Optimization of array access On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Michael Smith <Michael.Smith at synopsys.com> wrote: > Sorry,

I am having problems JIT'ing 2 functions where one of them calls the other. (I am using the old JIT interface). Here is the setup: define void @func1() { entrypoint: call void @func2(void) ret void } define void @func2(void) { entrypoint: ret void } (I omit the arguments and function bodies for simplicity.) It's 'func1' that would be called from host code,

Hello guys, I would like to ask for help to understand what is going on in "func2". My plan is to generalize "func1", so that are expected same results in "func2" as in "func1". Executing "func1" returns... 0.25 with absolute error < 8.4e-05 But for "func2" I get... Error in dpois(1, 0.1, 23.3065168689948, 0.000429064542600244,

Hi, I have a naive question on how to generate LLVM IR for inline functions. I have compiled this C code: *inline void func1()* * {* * int x=3;* * }* * void func2()* * {* * func1();* * int y = 4;* * }* into LLVM IR, using clang -emit-llvm -S -c <filename> But the generated LLVM IR file does *not* have func1() expanded (see below for the relevant parts). *; Function Attrs: nounwind

Hi, all. My question is about how to split one module into N modules(N >= 2)? For example, given the following code: #src.c# int main() { //......// func1(); func2(); //......// return 0; } void func1() { //......// } void func2() { //......// } func1() has no dependence with func2(), so they can perform parallel execution. And I have to split src.c into src1.c

Hi, I am searching for a way to solve the following problem: I want to use an external function, defined in a dyn.load()ed shared object, in another dyn.load()ed shared object. Currently I have to take the sources (Fortran) from one libraries src/ directory and copy them into the src/ dir of the other library, resulting in two copies of this function. This is bad for maintanance and maybe also

My question is a seemingly simple one. I have a bunch of user-defined functions which compute such-and-such objects. I want to be able to define a variable in a particular function, then make use of it later, perhaps in a different function, without necessarily having to move it around in argument lists. In the C community, it would be called a "global" variable. Question 1: Is this

Hi all, I have some some problem with regard to finding the integral of a function containing an indicator function. please see the code below: func1 <- function(x, mu){ (mu^2)*dnorm(x, mean = mu, sd = 1)*dgamma(x, shape=2)} m1star <- function(x){ integrate(func1, lower = 0, upper = Inf,x)$val} T <- function(x){ 0.3*dnorm(x)/(0.3*dnorm(x)+0.7*m1star(x))} func2 <-

Dear helpers, I am trying to write a function to return prediction values using package ts. I have written three different versions since I am not sure what's wrong with my func2. func and func1 return the same results.But func1 and func2 don't. In particular, the only difference between "func1" and "func2" is the function variable name being y and data, respectively.

Hi all, I have some some problem with regard to finding the integral of a function containing an indicator function. please see the code below: func1 <- function(x, mu){ (mu^2)*dnorm(x, mean = mu, sd = 1)*dgamma(x, shape=2)} m1star <- function(x){ integrate(func1, lower = 0, upper = Inf,x)$val} T <- function(x){ 0.3*dnorm(x)/(0.3*dnorm(x)+0.7*m1star(x))} func2 <-

Is there a tidy way to get the names of objects passed to a function via the "..." argument? rbind/cbind does what I want: test.func1 <- function(...) { nms <- rownames(rbind(..., deparse.level=1)) print(nms) } x <- "some stuff" second <- "more stuff" test.func1(first=x, second) [1] "first" "second" The usual

I'm hitting a strange pointer aliasing "bug". Here is a test case : /* SOURCE CODE */ #define little_list_size 8 class LittleList1 { public: int _length; double _data[ little_list_size ]; LittleList1( int length ) { _length = length; for( int i=0; i<length; i++ ) _data[i] = 0; } }; class LittleList2 { public: int _length; double _data[ little_list_size ];

I am running into an issue where if I have multiple functions compiled in the same compilation unit the stack offset is not starting at zero. For example: func1(...) { ... } func2(...) { ... } Say the first function uses 64 bytes of the stack and an assumed offset of 0 and the second function uses 32 bytes of the stack but an assumed offset of 64. I've found out how to get the

Folks, A small group of us are working together to develop a set of R functions to support data management and analysis using Eclipse/StatET in a Windows environment. We are using Git/EGit for version control. We work within our own repository and occasionally push to a common remote location. I'd like to have the code source files from the 'local' git repository without

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 5:21 AM, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 9:58 PM, Ryan Prichard via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> 2. *Termination landing pads.* >> >> Clang sometimes uses a landing pad that calls __clang_call_terminate to >> terminate the program. GCC instead leaves a gap in

Thanks Bruce, and elaborately as ever. Again, I'm surprised about your very thorough Z80 knowledge when you said you only did little on the ZX81 in the eighties :D OK, understood. I was first thinking about doing something like this for small frames: 1. push bc # 1 byte; 11 cycles - part of call frame-cleanup: save scratch register +-----begin call-related 2. ld