similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] Teaching ScalarEvolution to handle IV=add(zext(trunc(IV)), Step)

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Matthew Curtis <mcurtis at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hello all, > > I wanted to get some feedback on this patch for ScalarEvolution. > > It addresses a performance problem I am seeing for simple benchmark. > > Starting with this C code: > > 01: signed char foo(void) > 02: { > 03: const int count = 8000; > 04: signed char

Dan, Thanks for the response ... On 12/17/2012 1:53 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Matthew Curtis <mcurtis at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> I wanted to get some feedback on this patch for ScalarEvolution. >> >> It addresses a performance problem I am seeing for simple benchmark. >> >> Starting with this C

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Curtis <mcurtis at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > Here's how I'm evaluating the expression (in my head): > > 00: Add(ZeroExtend(Truncate(Minus(AddRec(Start=0,Step=3)[n],3), i8), i32),3) > | > 01: Add(ZeroExtend(Truncate(Minus(AddRec(Start=0,Step=3)[0],3), i8), i32),3) >

Ok, so I think I've mis-represented what's really happening. Ignore my previous statements concerning %add :) Again, given: 05: for.body: ; preds = %entry, %for.body 06: %j.04 = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %inc, %for.body ] 07: %result.03 = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %add, %for.body ] 08: %conv2 = and i32 %result.03, 255 09: %add = add nsw

I am using both nlminb and optim to get MLEs from a likelihood function I have developed. AFAIK, the model I has not been previously used in this way and so I am struggling a bit to unit test my code since I don't have another data set to compare this kind of estimation to. The likelihood I have is (in tex below) \begin{equation} \label{eqn:marginal} L(\beta) = \prod_{s=1}^N \int

I have constructed the function mml2 (below) based on the likelihood function described in the minimal latex I have pasted below for anyone who wants to look at it. This function finds parameter estimates for a basic Rasch (IRT) model. Using the function without the gradient, using either nlminb or optim returns the correct parameter estimates and, in the case of optim, the correct standard

dear list, as a part my problem. I have to estimate some parameters using ML estimation. The form of the likelihood function is not straight forward and I had to use a for loop to define the function. I used "optim" to maximise the result but was not sure of the programme. To validate my results, I tried to write a function to obtain the MLE of a bivariate normal in the same manner. On

.. And a version without the API changes. -------------- next part -------------- Index: libspeex/resample_sse.h =================================================================== --- libspeex/resample_sse.h (revision 0) +++ libspeex/resample_sse.h (revision 0) @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +/* Copyright (C) 2002-2008 Jean-Marc Valin + * Copyright (C) 2008 Thorvald Natvig + */ +/** + @file resample_sse.h +

Hi, Here's the (hopefully) final version of the resampler, now always using st->mem as the buffer area. It only allocates buffers on the stack when it's necesarry to convert the output between int and float. -------------- next part -------------- Index: include/speex/speex_resampler.h =================================================================== ---

Hi, 2011/4/8 Vlad Krylov <krvladislav at gmail.com>: > Hi. > > I see that to detect scops firstly we search for regions in CFG ( by > RegionInfo ) and then select regions that answer some requirements ( > in ScopDetection ). Because only affine expressions in conditions and > bounds are permissible, we trying to get scalar expressions into > affine form by

From: Thorvald Natvig <slicer at users.sourceforge.net> Some optimizing compilers miscompile the current SSE optimizations when full optimizations are enabled. By using output value pointer instead of a return value, we can bypass this misbehaviour. --- libspeex/resample.c | 8 ++++---- libspeex/resample_sse.h | 24 ++++++++---------------- 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 20

Hi. I see that to detect scops firstly we search for regions in CFG ( by RegionInfo ) and then select regions that answer some requirements ( in ScopDetection ). Because only affine expressions in conditions and bounds are permissible, we trying to get scalar expressions into affine form by AffineSCEVIterator. At present there plugs for scev types Truncate, ZeroExtend, SignExtend, UDivExpr,

2011/4/8 ether zhhb <etherzhhb at gmail.com>: > Hi, > > 2011/4/8 Vlad Krylov <krvladislav at gmail.com>: >> Hi. >> >> I see that to detect scops firstly we search for regions in CFG ( by >> RegionInfo ) and then select regions that answer some requirements ( >> in ScopDetection ). Because only affine expressions in conditions and >> bounds

> > I realize this is a micro-op saving a single cycle. But this reduces the instruction count, one less > instr to decode in a potentially hot path. If this all makes sense, and seems like a reasonable addition > to llvm, would it make sense to implement this as a supplemental LSR formula, or as a separate pass? This seems reasonable to me so long as rbx has no other uses that

Hello I'm new to R (one week) so please excuse any obvious mistakes in my code or posting. I am attempting to fit a non linear function defining the relationship between dependent variable A and the variables PAR and T grouped by the condition Di. The following steps are taken in the Rcode below: 1) load the data (not shown) 2) define the function to be fit 3) define the starting values

Coefficients are based on the formula: uV = 0.1 * arg[0] + 150.5 * arg[1] + 22.65025 * arg[2] It seems to be rounded downwards. I have no idea why the voltage isn't specified in the bios directly. Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at canonical.com> ---- diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/bios/vmap.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/bios/vmap.c

+CC llvm-dev On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:34 AM, Gal Zohar <Gal.Zohar at ceva-dsp.com> wrote: > I noticed that SCEV, when trying to perform strength reduction, doesn’t use > the ability to prove an induction variable does not signed/unsigned wrap due > to infinite loops. > > Is there an easy way to use the isAddRecNeverPoison function when > determining if strength reduction

Hi all, I have been looking at the way LLVM optimizes code before forwarding it to the backend I develop for my company and while building define i32 @test_extract_subreg_func(i32 %x, i32 %y) #0 { entry: %conv = zext i32 %x to i64 %conv1 = zext i32 %y to i64 %mul = mul nuw i64 %conv1, %conv %shr = lshr i64 %mul, 32 %xor = xor i64 %shr, %mul %conv2 = trunc i64 %xor to i32

On 04/08/2011 08:35 PM, Vlad Krylov wrote: > 2011/4/8 ether zhhb<etherzhhb at gmail.com>: >> Hi, >> >> 2011/4/8 Vlad Krylov<krvladislav at gmail.com>: >>> Hi. >>> >>> I see that to detect scops firstly we search for regions in CFG ( by >>> RegionInfo ) and then select regions that answer some requirements ( >>> in

From: Jyri Sarha <jsarha at ti.com> Semantics of inner_product_single have also been changed to contain the final right shift and saturation so it can also be implemented in the optimal way for the used platform. This change affects fixed point calculations only. I also added a new fixed point macro SATURATE32PSHR(x, shift, a). It does pretty much the same thing as SATURATE32(PSHR32(x,