Displaying 20 results from an estimated 20000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] [PROPOSAL] per-function optimization level control"
2013 Apr 24
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] [PROPOSAL] per-function optimization level control
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:00 AM, <Andrea_DiBiagio at sn.scee.net> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We've had a high priority feature request from a number of our customers
> to
> provide per-function optimization in our Clang/LLVM compiler.
> I would be interested in working with the community to implement this.
> The idea is to allow the optimization level to be overridden
>
2013 Apr 24
1
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] [PROPOSAL] per-function optimization level control
Especially since we have support for per function code gen attributes now.
-eric
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:00 AM, <Andrea_DiBiagio at sn.scee.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> We've had a high priority feature request from a number of our customers
>> to
>>
2017 Nov 03
2
FW: clarification needed for the constrained fp implementation.
Copying the list on a discussion of potentially general interest....
From: Kaylor, Andrew
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 1:11 PM
To: 'Ding, Wei' <Wei.Ding2 at amd.com>; Sumner, Brian <Brian.Sumner at amd.com>; Arsenault, Matthew <Matthew.Arsenault at amd.com>
Subject: RE: clarification needed for the constrained fp implementation.
Hi Wei,
I've been meaning to
2013 Jun 13
5
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] [PROPOSAL] per-function optimization level control
GCC's optimize attribute should work fine (at least with trunk):
__attribute__((optimize("O3","no-tree-pre"))) int foo( ...)
{
...
}
will turn on -O3 for 'foo', but disable PRE pass for it.
If you see any problems there, you should file a bug.
Regarding Andrea's proposal -- the new #pragma can be useful (in rare
cases when there is a compiler bug), the
2017 Nov 04
2
FW: clarification needed for the constrained fp implementation.
On 11/03/2017 05:26 PM, 陳韋任 via llvm-dev wrote:
>
>
> 2017-11-04 4:29 GMT+08:00 Kaylor, Andrew via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>:
>
> Copying the list on a discussion of potentially general interest….
>
> *From:* Kaylor, Andrew
> *Sent:* Friday, November 03, 2017 1:11 PM
> *To:* 'Ding,
2004 Mar 25
1
mlocal/mtrace inside a loop
Hello
I need some help in figuring Bravington’s debugger
out.
Ok
I have 2 functions, fun1 and fun2 saved in a ASCII
file say filename is funs.
Fun1 has a loop which calls fun2, fun2 has a loop
which fails and I need to find out the value of the
variables of the fun2 and fun1 loops at the specific
iteration that fails. Both fun1 and fun2 loops will
iterate thousands of times so line by line debug
2006 Aug 09
3
objects and environments
Dear list,
I have two functions created in the same environment, fun1 and fun2.
fun2 is called by fun1, but fun2 should use an object which is created in fun1
fun1 <- function(x) {
ifelse(somecondition, bb <- "o", bb <- "*")
## mymatrix is created, then
myresult <- apply(mymatrix, 1, fun2)
}
fun2 <- function(idx) {
if (bb == "o) {
#
2013 Jun 14
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] [PROPOSAL] per-function optimization level control
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:06 AM, <Andrea_DiBiagio at sn.scee.net> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>> Regarding Andrea's proposal -- the new #pragma can be useful (in rare
>> cases when there is a compiler bug), the intended use cases are
>> questionable:
>> 1) it should not be used as a mechanism to triage compiler bugs -- the
>> compiler backend should have
2018 Jan 09
1
[cfe-dev] Why is #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS not supported?
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 06:53:51PM +0000, Kaylor, Andrew via cfe-dev wrote:
> I think we're going to need to create a new mechanism to communicate
> strict FP modes to the backend. I think we need to avoid doing anything
> that will require re-inventing or duplicating all of the pattern
> matching that goes on in instruction selection (which is the reason
>
2014 Jan 25
1
package NAMESPACE question
Hello,
I'm building a package. My code is stored in foo.R. This code has two
functions FUN1 and FUN2. FUN1 calls FUN2. FUN1 is listed in export() under
the package NAMESPACE but NOT FUN2. After building the package when I call
FUN1 is giving me an error that cannot find FUN2.
I solved this by adding FUN2 in the export() NAMESPACE. However, what is
puzzling me is that I have other examples
2006 Aug 16
1
Problem with the special argument '...' within a function
I'm not sure if this is what you want, but simply add ... to the list of
arguments for fun1 and fun2 would eliminate the error.
Andy
From: Hans-Joerg Bibiko
>
> Dear all,
>
> I wrote some functions using the special argument '...'. OK, it works.
>
> But if I call such a function which also called such a
> function, then I get an error message about unused
2009 May 01
1
integrate with large parameters
Dear R-users,
i have to integrate the following function
`fun1` <- function (a, l1, l2)
{
exp(log(l1) * (a - 1) - l2 * lgamma(a))
}
but if l1 is large, i get the "non-finite function value" error, so my
idea is to rescale with exp(-l1)
`fun2` <- function (a, l1, l2)
{
exp(log(l1) * (a - 1) - l2 * lgamma(a) - l1)
}
but it seems this doesn't solve the problem, when
2009 Oct 01
1
pass "..." to multiple sub-functions
Dear list,
I know I have seen this discussed before but I haven't been successful
in searching for "ellipsis", "dots", "..." in the archives. I would
like to filter "..." arguments according to their name, and dispatch
them to two sub-functions, say fun1 and fun2. I looked at lm() but it
seemed more complicated than I need as it modifies the calling
2015 Dec 24
2
r250501 adds dependancy to ole32.dll on MSVC
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Aaron Ballman via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Jakob Bornecrantz <wallbraker at
2012 Aug 30
1
How to modify the values of the parameters passing via ...
Dear Friends,
Let's assume there are three parameters that were passed into fun1. In
fun1, we need to modify one para but the remains need to be untouched. And
then all parameters were passed into fun2. However, I have failed to
achieve it.
Please see the following code.
##########################################
fun1 <-function(x, y, z=10) {x+y+z;}
fun2 <-function(aa, ...) {
2016 Jan 12
2
r250501 adds dependancy to ole32.dll on MSVC
r257499
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Jakob Bornecrantz <wallbraker at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Jakob Bornecrantz <wallbraker at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
2009 Jun 16
1
ifelse(is.na), with function inside
Hi,
I have a vector a=c(NA, 3, 4, 4, NA, NA, 3) and I would like to use is.na(a)
function to get a vector like this:
wy=(1,2,2,2,1,1,2) - you know, this vector create 1 or 2 depends on value in
vector "a"
This is my short code but something is wrong and I don't know what...
for (i in 1:7){
a=c( NA, 3, 4, 4, NA, NA, 3)
fun1=function(x){
x=1
print(x)
}
fun2=function(x){
2013 Jun 14
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] [PROPOSAL] per-function optimization level control
Hi David,
> Regarding Andrea's proposal -- the new #pragma can be useful (in rare
> cases when there is a compiler bug), the intended use cases are
> questionable:
> 1) it should not be used as a mechanism to triage compiler bugs -- the
> compiler backend should have mechanism to allow any pass to be
> disabled for any (range of) function(s) via command line options so
>
2013 Jul 28
0
[LLVMdev] IR Passes and TargetTransformInfo: Straw Man
Hi, Sean:
I'm sorry I lie. I didn't mean to lie. I did try to avoid making a
*BIG* change
to the IPO pass-ordering for now. However, when I make a minor change to
populateLTOPassManager() by separating module-pass and non-module-passes, I
saw quite a few performance difference, most of them are degradations.
Attacking
these degradations one by one in a piecemeal manner is wasting
2011 Apr 07
2
Two functions as parametrs of a function.
Hi R users:
I'm trying to make a function where two of the parameters are
functions, but I don't know how to put each set of parameters for
each function.
What am I missing?
I try this code:
f2<-function(n=2,nsim=100,fun1=rnorm,par1=list(),fun2=rnorm,par2=list()){
force(fun1)
force(fun2)
force(n)
p1<-unlist(par1)
p2<-unlist(par2)
force(p1)
force(p2)