similar to: [LLVMdev] What pattern of front end language can be tranalated into

I find this pattern as below from <llvm-source-tree>/test/CodeGen/Mips/alloca.ll. Do you know what front end pattern can be translated into this pattern alloca with variable argument %size as below? Can some one help me? I am writing the llvm backend document --http://jonathan2251.github.com/lbd/index.html now. %tmp1 = alloca i8, i32 %size, align 4 // has %size variable, not pattern,

I have a very large dataframe and wish to extract a subset of rows. I have a two column matrix listing the starting and ending indices of one subset on each row. My idea is to create a vector of indices that could be applied to the dataframe and I have a solution using a for loop (below). But surely there is some more elegant way to do this! I looked thorough the archives without

I am trying to symbolically execute LLVM assembly language. I found a possible semantic inconsistancy of the LLVM assembly language, or maybe my understanding is wrong. The C code is: #include <stdlib.h> 1 int f(void) 2 { 3 int a; 4 int *b = (int *) malloc(3*sizeof(int)); 5 a = 3; 6 return 0; 7 } I compile it with llvm-gcc 4 front end. The generated

The LegalizeDAG.cpp file has this code in SelectionDAGLegalize::PromoteNode: case ISD::BSWAP: { unsigned DiffBits = NVT.getSizeInBits() - OVT.getSizeInBits(); Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::ZERO_EXTEND, dl, NVT, Tmp1); Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::BSWAP, dl, NVT, Tmp1); Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::SRL, dl, NVT, Tmp1, DAG.getConstant(DiffBits, TLI.getShiftAmountTy()));

On Dec 22, 2009, at 2:38 PMPST, Bill Wendling wrote: > The LegalizeDAG.cpp file has this code in > SelectionDAGLegalize::PromoteNode: > > case ISD::BSWAP: { > unsigned DiffBits = NVT.getSizeInBits() - OVT.getSizeInBits(); > Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::ZERO_EXTEND, dl, NVT, Tmp1); > Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::BSWAP, dl, NVT, Tmp1); > Tmp1 = DAG.getNode(ISD::SRL, dl,

Hello! I am merging two datasets and I have encountered a problem with sort. Can someone please point me to my error. Here is the example. ## I have dataframes, first one with factor and second one with factor ## and integer > tmp1 <- data.frame(col1 = factor(c("A", "A", "C", "C", "0", "0"))) > tmp2 <- data.frame(col1 =

Dear all, The function f() below is a function of m1 and m2, both of which are matrices with 3 rows. The function works sequentially one row after another. So altogether there are three stages. I am trying to update the coding to write a generic function that will work for arbitrary k stages. I am hoping to get some suggestion and help. Thanks so much! Hanna ##x, y are two

Eli, Using the variables from the original IR, assuming tmp == tmp1 and assume the value is not nan ogt(tmp, tmp1) is !isnan(tmp) && !isnan(tmp1) && tmp > tmp1, or false ule(tmp, tmp1) is isnan(tmp) || isnan(tmp1) || tmp <= tmp1, or true So, this is invalid, or am I misunderstanding what ogt and ule stand for? Assuming this is valid, why convert comparison instructions

Some of the optimizations that the first DAG combine performs is counter productive for our 8-bit target. For example in: // I dropped the types because they are irrelevant. // Excuse me for changing the syntax... store %tmp1, %var %tmp2 = load %var %tmp4 = add %tmp3, %tmp2 Since load is the only user of var and since var has just be stored to, it assumes that %tmp1 is alive and it goes ahead

data: > tmp1 Date HrMn Temp Q.4 1 19450101 0900 -37.0 1 2 19450101 1000 -35.9 2 3 19450101 1100 -35.9 3 4 19450101 1200 -36.4 4 5 19450101 1300 -36.4 5 6 19450101 1400 -36.4 6 7 19450101 1500 -36.4 7 8 19450101 1600 -37.5 9 Accidentally, I did this (I meant to write Q.4 instead of Q here) > tmp1$Q[tmp1$Q!="1" & tmp1$Q!= "5"]<-NA I would

Using the Thumb-2 target we see that ORN ( a | ^b) and BIC (a & ^b) have similar patterns, as we would expect: defm t2BIC : T2I_bin_irs<"bic", BinOpFrag<(and node:$LHS, (not node: $RHS))>>; defm t2ORN : T2I_bin_irs<"orn", BinOpFrag<(or node:$LHS, (not node: $RHS))>>; Compiling the following three works as expected: %tmp1 = xor i32

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > Eli, > Using the variables from the original IR, > assuming tmp == tmp1 and assume the value is not nan > ogt(tmp, tmp1) is !isnan(tmp) && !isnan(tmp1) && tmp > tmp1, or false > ule(tmp, tmp1) is isnan(tmp) || isnan(tmp1) || tmp <= tmp1, or true Correct; in fact, ogt and

In LegalizeDAG.cpp, truncating stores are custom-lowered in line 1314-1317: 1314 case TargetLowering::Custom: 1315 ReplaceNode(SDValue(Node, 0), 1316 TLI.LowerOperation(SDValue(Node, 0), DAG)); 1317 break; Is there a reason it doesn't check whether the SDValue returned from TargetLowering::LowerOperation is null before it replaces the

Dear Daniel, Thank you for your email. According to your suggestion, I tried to use the shared memory filesystem for data exchange between the host machine and the container. The steps are as follows: 1) create an empty file in the host machine (/tmp1/file1). 2) run #chmod 777 /tmp1 and #chmod 777 /tmp1/file1. 3) expose /tmp1 to the container by configuring the container with the following XML

On Jun 25, 2009, at 4:38 PM, David Goodwin wrote: > Using the Thumb-2 target we see that ORN ( a | ^b) and BIC (a & ^b) > have similar patterns, as we would expect: > > defm t2BIC : T2I_bin_irs<"bic", BinOpFrag<(and node:$LHS, (not node: > $RHS))>>; > defm t2ORN : T2I_bin_irs<"orn", BinOpFrag<(or node:$LHS, (not node: >

On Jul 3, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Richard Osborne wrote: >> >> This seems to break the convention. It should be the responsibility >> of the caller to further legalize the results. >> >> Evan > That makes sense. In that case I believe > SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeSetCCOperands > should be legalizing the result. The description of this function > says

Evan Cheng wrote: > On Jul 3, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Richard Osborne wrote: > >>> This seems to break the convention. It should be the responsibility >>> of the caller to further legalize the results. >>> >>> Evan >>> >> That makes sense. In that case I believe >> SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeSetCCOperands >> should be

Simple example of 5 groups of 4 replicates. >set.seed(5) >tmp <- rnorm(20) >gp <- as.factor(rep(1:5,each=4)) >summary(glm(tmp ~ -1 + gp, data=data.frame(tmp, gp)))$coefficients Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)gp1 -0.1604613084 0.4899868 -0.3274809061 0.7478301gp2 0.0002487984 0.4899868 0.0005077655 0.9996016gp3 0.0695463698 0.4899868

The code sequence: > store %tmp1, var > > tmp4 = add %tmp3 , %tmp1 > can happen even if you eliminate the specific dag combine in question. The real solution lies elsewhere. To me, this seems more like a register allocation problem. Evan On Mar 22, 2009, at 9:39 PM, Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote: > I can't think of any workaround? this optimization eliminates

Thanks, that's a lot more like the output I was expecting. But, I'm now wondering if I'm doing something wrong because the output confuses me. When run on the program: int main() { int a = 5; int* b = &a; int* c = &a; return *b; } I would expect to see either b may alias c or b must alias c. But, it doesn't even appear in the list. Furthermore, I would expect