similar to: [LLVMdev] Odd weak symbol thing on i386

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm compiling lldiv.c from the NetBSD standard library. It works on ARM, Mips, > Microblaze,ppc, ppc64, and x86_64. On i386 a very strange thing happens. > Here's the source: > > #include <stdlib.h> > #define       __weak_alias(sym) __attribute__ ((weak, alias

Hi, I have run into the following strange behavior and wanted to ask for some advice. For the C program below, function sum() gets inlined in foo() but the code generated looks very suboptimal (the code is an extract from a larger program). Below I show the 32-bit x86 assembly as produced by the demo page on the llvm home page ("Output A"). As you can see from the assembly, after

I don't know much about this, but maybe -mllvm -unroll-count=1 can be used as a workaround? /Patrik Hägglund -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Walker Sent: den 28 mars 2012 03:18 To: llvmdev Subject: [LLVMdev] Suboptimal code due to excessive spilling Hi, I have run into the following strange behavior

I got a really simple code to test but the author unfortunately used conio.h and system("cls") quite a few times. So I thought I'll check if I can use my Wine-1.1.11 instead of a windows installation that I keep on a VM. I used 'winemaker ./' and then 'make' and that's what I got: Code: szczerb at nomad ~/projekty/wine/plansza $ make wineg++ -c -mno-cygwin -I.

Hi, We seem to have found a bug in the LLVM 3.8 code generator. We are using MCJIT and have isolated working.ll and broken.ll after middle-end optimizations -- in the block merge128, notice that broken.ll has a fcmp une comparison to zero and a jump based on that branch: merge128: ; preds = %true71, %false72 %_rtB_724 = load %B_repro_T*, %B_repro_T**

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 How can I use std::string in my winemaker project? If I do a #include <string> along with an #include <windows.h>, I get the following errors: - --- In file included from /usr/include/c++/3.3/i486-linux/bits/c++io.h:35, from /usr/include/c++/3.3/bits/fpos.h:44, from

Dear R-experts, I am running a large simulation exercise where the enough complicated integration is required. The integral is computed within a C-function called Denom by use of function qags from the gsl library. Here is a piece of R-code: denom<-try(.C("Denom",as.double(x),as.integer(n), as.integer(p), as.double(param),

I think there's a bug somewhere in TableGen for the X86 disassembler emitter. The following test: $ echo "0xF3 0xA5" | ./bin/llvm-mc -disassemble .section __TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions movsd (from llvm trunk) 0xF3 is the REP prefix, so the printed instruction should be 'rep movsd', however all that is printed is 'movsd'. It seems that there

Hello folks, I've recently been looking at the generated code for a few functions in Chromium while investigating crashes, and I came across a curious pattern. A smallish repro case is available at https://godbolt.org/z/Dsu1WI . In that case, the function Assembler::emit_arith receives a struct (Operand) by value and passes it by value to another function. That struct is 8 bytes long, so the

HI >i have a problem please help me to solve it: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/file/n4639434/aj.pdf aj.pdf >i want to calculate the vecteur a[j] where j: 1...8 >this is the code in R: >aj.fun <- function(j, i, X, z, E, beta0, beta1){ + n <- length(X) + iX <- order(X) + iz <- order(z) + e1 <- -(beta)*z[ iz[1:(i - 1)] ] + numer <- E[j] - sum( X[ iX[1:(i - 1)] ]

Dear all, I have a function to optimize for a set of parameters and want to set a constraint on only one parameter. Here is my function. What I want to do is estimate the parameters of a bivariate normal distribution where the correlation has to be between -1 and 1. Would you please advise how to revise it? ex=function(s,prob,theta1,theta,xa,xb,xc,xd,t,delta) { expo1=

On 13 August 2012 12:02, Andrew Ruef <awruef at umd.edu> wrote: > I think there's a bug somewhere in TableGen for the X86 disassembler > emitter. The following test: > > $ echo "0xF3 0xA5" | ./bin/llvm-mc -disassemble > .section __TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions > movsd > > (from llvm trunk) > > 0xF3 is the REP prefix, so the

Dear members, I am trying to use boot () to compute the distributions of a statistic of a data set. The statistic is defined in the following code: eds<-function(x) { r<-cor(x) paren<-1-abs(r)/2 denom<-sum(sum(paren)+0.5) desvio<-sd(x) media<-mean(x) a<-desvio/media

I write a small function and test it under clang and gcc, filet test.c: double X[100]; double Y[100]; double DA = 0.3; int f() { int i; for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) Y[i] = Y[i] - DA * X[i]; return 0; } clang -S -O3 -o test.s test.c -march=native -ccc-echo result: "D:/work/trunk/bin/Release/clang.exe" -cc1 -triple i686-pc-win32 -S -disable-fr e -disable-llvm-verifier

Compiling a simple automaton created by GNU bison with -O1 or -O2 resulted in the following machine code: 1300 /*-----------------------------. 1301 | yyreduce -- Do a reduction. | 1302 `-----------------------------*/ 1303 yyreduce: 1304 /* yyn is the number of a rule to reduce with. */ 1305 yylen = yyr2[yyn]; 0x0000000000400c14 <rpcalc_parse+628>: mov

Hi all, I'm trying to insert a function call "llvm_memory_profiling " right before each memory access. The function uses the effective address of the memory access as its single parameter. A example is as follows: the function call at 402a99 has a parameter passed to %rdi at 402a91. One can see that the function call is exactly before the memory access I want to monitor because

I want to write a pattern that looks something like this: def : Pat<(unalignedstore (v2f64 VR128:$src), addr:$dst), (MOVSDmr ADD64ri8(addr:$dst, imm:8), ( SHUFPDrri (VR128:$src, (MOVSDmr addr:$dst, FR64:$src))), imm:3) So I want to convert an unaligned vector store to a scalar store, a shuffle and a scalar store. There are several question I have: - Is the imm:3 syntax

Liu, I do not think there is a trivial way to do it. Do you really _have_ to have those instructions together, or mere order is enough? Also, how much performance are you willing to sacrifice to do what you do? Maybe turning off scheduling all together is an acceptable solution? Sergei --- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux

Hi I'm trying to develop some C code to find the fixpoint of a contraction mapping, the code compiles and gives the right results when executed in R. However R-gui session is frequently terminated. I'm suspecting some access violation error due to the exception code 0xc0000005 In the error report windows 10 gives me. It is the first time I'm writing any C-code so I'm guessing I

Hey guys, I'm working on a bug for x86-64 in LLVM 2.9. Well, it's actually two issues. The assembly generated for large stack offsets has an overflow; And, once the overflow is fixed, the displacement is too large for GNU ld to handle it. void fool( int long n ) { double w[268435600]; double z[268435600]; unsigned long i; for ( i = 0; i < n; i++ ) { w[i] = 1.0; z[i] =