similar to: [LLVMdev] [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 >

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 >>

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

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

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,

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

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) { #

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

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 >

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

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

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

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

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

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, ...) {

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:

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){

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 >

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

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)