similar to: [LLVMdev] providing llvm gcc built-in function implementation...

Here's the code and compilation steps: #include <stdint.h> typedef unsigned int uint128_t __attribute__((mode(TI))); typedef struct{ uint64_t l[5]; } s; void f(s * restrict r, const s * restrict x, const s * restrict y) { uint128_t t[5] = {0, 0, 0, 0, 0}; #define BODY(i,j) { int i_ = i < j ? i : j; int j_ = i < j ? j : i; uint128_t m = (uint128_t) x->l[i_] *

> Dave Yeo wrote: >> Yes that makes sense. Requiring a C99 compliant compiler seems quite reasonable. > Well I'm actually going to be even more reasonable than that. The only bits of C99 that flac will really require is header file > with C99 standard width integers (int8_t, uint8_t, int16_t etc). Erik I would recommend including with the distribution a file for windows

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09.02.2012 21:41, Ben Allison wrote: >>> Dave Yeo wrote: >>>> Yes that makes sense. Requiring a C99 compliant compiler >>>> seems quite >> reasonable. >>> Well I'm actually going to be even more reasonable than that. >>> The only >> bits of C99 that flac will really require is

>> Dave Yeo wrote: >>> Yes that makes sense. Requiring a C99 compliant compiler seems quite > reasonable. >> Well I'm actually going to be even more reasonable than that. The only > bits of C99 that flac will really require is header file >> with C99 standard width integers (int8_t, uint8_t, int16_t etc). Erik > > I would recommend including with the

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Taral <taralx at gmail.com> wrote: > > One piece of code I'm writing has a lot of intermediates, and I'm > trying to optimize down the number of memory accesses. Here's a > snippet from the start of the function, where I think there is some > low-hanging fruit: > > # BB#0: >        pushq   %rbp >        pushq   %r15

One piece of code I'm writing has a lot of intermediates, and I'm trying to optimize down the number of memory accesses. Here's a snippet from the start of the function, where I think there is some low-hanging fruit: # BB#0: pushq %rbp pushq %r15 pushq %r14 pushq %r13 pushq %r12 pushq %rbx movq %rdx, %rcx movq %rdi, -16(%rsp) # 8-byte Spill movq (%rsi), %rdi movq

I think from the C compiler's point of view, it is going to want it to work for any size above an i64, i.e. all the way up to an i128 so that if the user of the C compiler does this computation with __uint128_t's then it will Do The Right Thing TM. Basically, you want unsigned long a, b, c, d; .... const __uint128_t u = (__uint128_t) a + b; const unsigned long v = u >> 64; const

hi list, i am trying to change the input and output scheduler on my disks, and it does not allow me , I have several virtualized vm over kvm, and when I try to make the change it shows me this message: echo "noop" > /sys/block/vda/queue/scheduler -bash: echo: write error: Invalid argument kernel version: 3.10.0-1127.13.1.el7.x86_64 any idea? -- rickygm

Yeah I had a think about it, and I think intrinsics are the wrong way to do it. So I'd say you are likely right. Bill. On 13 June 2010 04:33, Alistair Lynn <arplynn at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Bill- > > I think, ideally, the backend would be able to match arbitrary-precision arithmetic to add-with-carry or subtract-with-borrow through i65/i33. That would remove the need for the

On 12 June 2010 00:51, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Bill Hart <goodwillhart at googlemail.com> wrote: >> Hi Eli, >> >> On 11 June 2010 22:44, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Bill Hart <goodwillhart at googlemail.com> wrote:

Hi Bill- I think, ideally, the backend would be able to match arbitrary-precision arithmetic to add-with-carry or subtract-with-borrow through i65/i33. That would remove the need for the overflow intrinsics entirely. Alistair On 13 Jun 2010, at 02:27, Bill Hart wrote: > I was able to get the loop to increment from -999 to 0 using IR > directly. That got rid of the cmpq. > > The

On 12 June 2010 00:51, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Bill Hart <goodwillhart at googlemail.com> wrote: >> Hi Eli, >> >> On 11 June 2010 22:44, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Bill Hart <goodwillhart at googlemail.com> wrote:

I was able to get the loop to increment from -999 to 0 using IR directly. That got rid of the cmpq. The carry i was after was able to be obtained using the intrinsic @llvm.uadd.with.overflow.i64, however there is no way to add with carry and have it realise that the resulting *carry out* cannot exceed 1. It actually writes the carry to a byte, and then uses logical operations on it, which slows

Objects compiled for the MS-ABI don't conform to it! Data types beyond 64 bit MUST BE returned by the callee via the hidden first argument allocated by the caller, NOT in XMM0! Demo/proof: from this source --- llvm-bug.c --- #ifndef __clang__ typedef struct { unsigned __int64 low; unsigned __int64 high; } __uint128_t; #else __attribute__((ms_abi)) #endif __uint128_t

I''ve installed wxWidgets on Fedora Core 3 and I''m now trying to install wxRuby. extconf.rb ran correctly, but when I run make, I get the following error: wx.cpp:29: error: new declaration `int wxEntryStart(int&, char**)'' /usr/local/include/wx-2.6/wx/init.h:29: error: ambiguates old declaration `boolwxEntryStart(int&, wxChar**)'' make: *** [wx.o] Error

Note that ?transform.data.frame says arguments need to be named, so you are testing unspecified behaviour. I guess this falls in a similar category as the note If some of the values are not vectors of the appropriate length, you deserve whatever you get! Experiments for a related Problem Report (<https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17890>) showed that packages

Answering my own question: On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Elliott Slaughter < elliottslaughter at gmail.com> wrote: > I'd like to parse a C++ header file (say, math.h) with the Clang bindings > for Python. (Yes, I know math.h is technically a C header, but for my > purposes I want to pretend that it is C++.) For some reason, Clang is able > to parse the file as C, but not

I'd like to parse a C++ header file (say, math.h) with the Clang bindings for Python. (Yes, I know math.h is technically a C header, but for my purposes I want to pretend that it is C++.) For some reason, Clang is able to parse the file as C, but not as C++. Here is an example session: >>> import clang.cindex >>> idx = clang.cindex.Index.create() >>> tu =

Am 03.07.2020 um 18:54 schrieb Rick Gutierrez: > hi list, i am trying to change the input and output scheduler on my > disks, and it does not allow me , > I have several virtualized vm over kvm, and when I try to make the > change it shows me this message: > > echo "noop" > /sys/block/vda/queue/scheduler > > -bash: echo: write error: Invalid argument >

Hi Elliott, On Oct 18, 2013, at 9:29 PM, Elliott Slaughter <elliottslaughter at gmail.com> wrote: > Answering my own question: > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Elliott Slaughter <elliottslaughter at gmail.com> wrote: > I'd like to parse a C++ header file (say, math.h) with the Clang bindings for Python. (Yes, I know math.h is technically a C header, but for my