similar to: [LLVMdev] adding architecture specific flag

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Chakraborty, Soham <Soham.Chakraborty at amd.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > We have implemented the rsqrt instruction generation for X86 target > architecture. We have introduced a flag -fp-rsqrt flag which controls the > generatation of X86 rsqrt instruction generation. > > We have observed minor effects on precision due to rsqrt and

Hi, We have implemented the rsqrt instruction generation for X86 target architecture. We have introduced a flag -fp-rsqrt flag which controls the generatation of X86 rsqrt instruction generation. We have observed minor effects on precision due to rsqrt and hence has put these transformations under the mentioned flag. Note that -fp-rsqrt is only enabled with -enable-unsafe-fp-math flag presently.

Hi, Please find attached the modified patch and description. We have modified and retested the patch taking into consideration the comments and inputs provided earlier. Thanks & Regards, soham -----Original Message----- From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:59 PM To: Chakraborty, Soham Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev]

Hello I am facing a curious problem.I have a time series data with which i want to fit auto-regressive model of order p, where p runs from 1:9.I am using a for loop which will fit an AR(p) model for each value of p using the *ar.ols* function. I am using the following code for ( p in 1:9){ a=ar.ols (x=data.ts, order.max=p, demean=T, intercept=T) } Specifying the *order.max* to be p, it gives me a

Hi, > Both A and B are undef: > LHS = (undef & undef) | (undef & undef) = undef // Since ~undef = undef > RHS = undef > Thus transform is correct. LLVM documentation (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#undefined-values) suggests that it is unsafe to consider (a & undef = undef) and (a | undef = undef). "As such, it is unsafe to optimize or assume

What is the value of undef * 0 in LLVM? According to its definition in the LLVM IR reference; "The string ‘undef‘ can be used anywhere a constant is expected..." Am I correct to say that undef * 0 = 0 following this definition? Best Regards, soham

Thanks for your answers. Another example of unsound transformation on Boolean algebra. According to the LLVM documentation (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#undefined-values) it is unsafe to consider ' a & undef = undef ' and ' a | undef = undef ' but 'undef xor undef = undef' is safe. Now, given an expression ((a & (~b)) | ((~a) & b)) where a and b are

With LLVM 3.8 the JIT compiler engine generates an AVX512 instruction although I target an 'avx2' CPU (intel Core I7). I just downloaded the most recent 3.8 and still it happens. It happens with this input module: target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128" define void @module_cFFEMJ(i64 %lo, i64 %hi, i64 %myId, i1 %ordered, i64 %start, i32* noalias align 32

On 06/23/2016 12:56 PM, Craig Topper wrote: > Can you check what value "getHostCPUName" returned? getHostCPUName() = skylake > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Frank Winter via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > With LLVM 3.8 the JIT compiler engine generates an AVX512 > instruction although I

I'm running LLVM under threadsanitizer (http://code.google.com/p/data-race-test/) to find and remove races in a larger program that uses LLVM as a library. One of the things that I found is that the TargetOptions are all global; you could create a TargetMachine targeting ARM and X86 in two threads, but they both have to share the same FloatABIType setting. This is silly, and I plan to fix it

I get a segfault with this code when setting the data layout: int main(int argc, char** argv) { llvm::InitializeNativeTarget(); llvm::LLVMContext TheContext; unique_ptr<Module> Mod(new Module("A",TheContext)); llvm::EngineBuilder engineBuilder(std::move(Mod)); std::string mcjit_error; engineBuilder.setMCPU(llvm::sys::getHostCPUName());

On Dec 1, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > I'm running LLVM under threadsanitizer > (http://code.google.com/p/data-race-test/) to find and remove races in > a larger program that uses LLVM as a library. One of the things that I > found is that the TargetOptions are all global; you could create a > TargetMachine targeting ARM and X86 in two threads, but they both have

Hi Soham, “extern inline” keyword will help in this case, with this keyword compiler is forced to keeps the definition of the function and make it available for the external usage. Also it retains the “inlinehint” attribute on the function, with that lto inliner may make it inline. Best, Ashutosh From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev

On 1 December 2011 17:15, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 1, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > >> I'm running LLVM under threadsanitizer >> (http://code.google.com/p/data-race-test/) to find and remove races in >> a larger program that uses LLVM as a library. One of the things that I >> found is that the TargetOptions are all

CommandFlags.inc is only included by llc and opt. I think it mostly just sets things on TargetMachine and TargetOptions and connects them to command line options. Clang has its own code for setting up TargetMachine and TargetOptions. I think a lot of configuration things these days tend to be done with function attributes in IR. You can just query the function attribute wherever without any need

It does, when the function has a body. When it doesn't, it ignores <https://godbolt.org/g/2BCvht>. The body might be provided later on in the toolchain via linking a library. Regards, Soham Sinha PhD Student, Department of Computer Science Boston University On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:25 AM Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > It works for me: > >

Ok. I can make a copy of the unique_ptr before moving it into the builder's constructor and use the copy later on. It is confusing to require a unique_ptr. Frank On 09/14/2016 12:11 PM, Frank Winter via llvm-dev wrote: > I am constructing the engine builder in the following way: > > llvm::SMDiagnostic Err; > unique_ptr<Module> Mod = getLazyIRFileModule("f.ll",

To continue the discussion I started last year (see the link below) on embedding command-line options in bitcode, I came up with a plan to improve the way the backend changes UnsafeFPMath on a per-function basis. The code in trunk currently resets TargetOptions::UnsafeFPMath at the beginning of SelectionDAGISel::runOnMachineFunction to enable compiling one function with “unsafe-fp-math=true” and

Sorry in advance for the stupid question, i still don’t understand some concepts like passes. I took a piece of code from llc, and I used it to write a function that creates an object (or assembly) file from an IR module. It compiles without any problems. But program crashes when it reaches add() method of the pass manager. Can you help me figuring out what’s the problem please? here is my

I don't know of a way to do it from the command-line, but if you're willing to change the IR, you can add the optsize (for -Os) or minsize (for -Oz) IR attribute to the function you're compiling. On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 5:59 AM, Bruce Hoult via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Idle question, if anyone is reading still ... how do you get llc to do -Os > or