similar to: [LLVMdev] type qualifiers in LLVM

On 4/24/2013 1:35 PM, Cameron McInally wrote: > > I believe that the wildcard is the extern keyword. > > Since the external symbol isn't resolved until link time, I suspect that > it would be a legal C program to do something like (maybe the language > lawyers know better though): > > XXX> cat test.c > extern int x; > > int kung( ) { > return x; > }

> On Jun 11, 2019, at 6:27 AM, Guillaume Chatelet <gchatelet at google.com> wrote: > > I spent some time reading the C standard <https://web.archive.org/web/20181230041359if_/http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/abq/c17_updated_proposed_fdis.pdf>: > > 5.1.2.3 Program execution > 2. Accessing a volatile object, modifying an object, modifying a file, or calling

OK, I updated the text to LangRef in r209507 after some editing. On 05/11/2014 12:36 PM, Pekka Jääskeläinen wrote: > Hi, > > This looks good to me except that the first sentence > could already include "that refer to the same loop" or > similar. > > I could imagine that e.g. loop invariant code motion, > if applied to a parallel loop could hoist code out of >

I propose that we change the first paragraph of http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#llvm-mem-parallel-loop-access-metadata: --- For a loop to be parallel, in addition to using the llvm.loop metadata to mark the loop latch branch instruction, also all of the memory accessing instructions in the loop body need to be marked with the llvm.mem.parallel_loop_access metadata. If there is at least one

Will do. I will write something up. Hal, your concern below isn't so much with the proposed semantics but rather with the use - that optimizations must respect the loop for which the metadata applies, correct? Thanks Jon -----Original Message----- From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 4:00 AM To: Tobias Grosser Cc: Pekka Jääskeläinen; Humphreys, Jonathan;

Yes, I think the 2 outcomes are: - the current spec is unclear and will be clarified - in order to support safelen() and even the simd construct itself, LLVM will require infrastructure work to know when a lexically backwards dependence may have been introduced. Jon -----Original Message----- From: Tian, Xinmin [mailto:xinmin.tian at intel.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 10:43 AM To:

It's a problem in the OpenMP specification. The authors (including some from Intel) intended that the OpenMP simd construct assert no lexically backward dependences exist, but as you say, it's not obvious from the spec. One of our OpenMP community members is going to bring up the ambiguity with the OpenMP committee. - Arch -----Original Message----- From: Humphreys, Jonathan

Hey Scott, On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Scott Pakin <pakin at lanl.gov> wrote: ... > > Is there some semantic reason that the increments aren't allowed to be > combined, or is this a missed optimization opportunity in LLVM? > > I believe that the wildcard is the extern keyword. Since the external symbol isn't resolved until link time, I suspect that it would be

On 05/05/2014 10:14, Pekka Jääskeläinen wrote: > On 05/02/2014 07:22 PM, Humphreys, Jonathan wrote: >> Thanks for the link. I understand your concern of caution with metadata. >> I cannot, though, imagine how the dependence relation (independence) >> of two >> memory references can be affected by a third memory reference. If two >> references are independent

I agree, this is a bug. John On 6/7/19 11:48 AM, JF Bastien via llvm-dev wrote: > > >> On Jun 5, 2019, at 2:28 PM, Tim Northover via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 13:49, Eli Friedman via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> I don’t see any particular reason to guarantee that a volatile

I'm in the process of writing a clang-tidy check that concerns the position of the "const" keyword. The check should either enforce "T const" or "const T", based on a flag. Naturally, this should extend to all sorts of variations and qualifiers, e.g., X<const T&, Y const*> const&. My approach is to first find the right AST matcher expression to flag

More precisely, for a simd loop, if the safelen(VL) clause is specified, there should have no loop-carried lexical backward data dependency within the specified safe vector length VL. We will make this clear in the OpenMP 4.1 spec. Xinmin Tian (Intel) -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Hal Finkel Sent:

Does anyone know how to retrieve the R squared value for a line on a graph? Thanks Georgina

On 28 September 2014 22:09, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Thanks Xinmin! > > So we'll need a method to ensure the correct (partial) ordering. I thought that the idea was to avoid computing loop dependencies when safelen is specified, at least at that level. We might do it to a greater length, but we should assume it to be safe for distances < VL. We still need

> Sorry for coming to the discussion so late. I have a couple of questions/comments: Actually, you're note is timely, because I'm planning to send out a patch (as soon as I update LangRef and rerun tests) that supports safelen but *not* lexical dependences. I don't need the safelen for Julia, but having done the work and seeing that OpenMP needs it, feel that I should finish the

html has tidy. is there anything that would format ruby source? i looked around, but googling on ''ruby format'' is maybe not so useful. i''d love to get something that would batch an entire app/ directory... (which i realize, suggests *.rhtml as well.) thanks! -- David Humphreys dave@dbhumphreys.com

Can I call partials from html files in public? Is this wise? I''ve got a bunch of html files and I''d like to let them have access to pieces of Rails, but I''d like to manage them through Contribute or some such. I *could* wiki them up, but that seems like a lot of work for pages that don''t get updated that often (yearly or so). Thanks in advance! - Dave --

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=551 Summary: gcc warning: assignment discards qualifiers from pointer target type Product: ulogd Version: SVN (please provide t Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ulogd

If I have a set of data comprising a list of numbers of eggs on mosquito guts that range from 1 to 157. How can I get R to draw a barchart of the distribution of the data (i.e. x axis= number of eggs on a gut, y axis=number of mosquitoes found with that number of eggs)? Data is listed below. Thanks, Georgina Number of eggs on each mosquito gut: [1] 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 12 12 1 2

I'm looking at pocl and the loop based metadata llvm.loop and llvm.mem.parallel_loop_access, and am hoping someone familiar with it can help with my understanding. First, I understand this to be true: - llvm.loop doesn't by itself communicate anything. It is used by other metadata to anchor that metadata to the loop. - if all memory instructions in a loop have the