similar to: [LLVMdev] Combining physical registers

On May 16, 2013, at 8:13 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > The function TII::canCombineSubRegIndices has been gone for a while now, and I was wondering if there is a target-independent way of determining if a certain set of physical registers "adds up" to a larger register. For example, on X86, AL and AH together form AX. On Hexagon, R0 and R1 are

On 5/16/2013 11:17 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > > Would this TRI function solve your problem? >[...] > /// > /// Covering = getCoveringLanes(); > /// MaskA = getSubRegIndexLaneMask(SubA); > /// MaskB = getSubRegIndexLaneMask(SubB); > /// > /// If (MaskA & ~(MaskB & Covering)) == 0, then SubA is completely covered by > /// SubB.

Jean-Marc, >I'm still not sure I get it. On an Athlon XP, I can do something like >"mulps xmm0, xmm1", which means that the xmm registers are indeed >supported. Besides, without the xmm registers, you can't use much of >SSE. In the Atholon XP 2400+ that we have in our QA lab (Win2000 ) if you run that code it generates an Illegal Instruction Error. In addition,

Hi, I just started using R a few weeks ago and have a problem with linking Fortran subroutines to R. For some reasons, I need to compile a Fortran program in R (or Splus) and the whole program consists a couple of subroutines, say, subA and subB. There is no difficulty in linking the subroutines individually, but two subroutines are nested, as shown below, SUBROUTINE subA(arg.) EXTERNAL

I have two vectors for values collected from a group of subjects, say a=c(100,200,150,120,140,180) b=c(200,300,420,130) I also have two vectors which indicate the corresponding subjects for a and b, say for a, the subjects are suba=c(1,2,3,4,5,6) for b, the subjects are subb=c(1,3,5,6) Then, I want to find out the paired values from a and b, such as (100, 200) (from subject 1), (150,300)

How can I prevent some nodes from being combined in DAGCombine.cpp? Maybe what I want to do below doesn't follow the philosophy of LLVM, but I'd like to know if there is any way to avoid node from being combined. TargetLowering::PerformDAGCombine() is only called if DAGCombiner cannot combine a specific node. It seems that there is no chance to stop it from combining a node. I need the

On Jul 22, 2008, at 1:36 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: >> Yep, I think it makes sense for TargetData to have info about the >> size/ >> alignment of a pointer in each addr space. That is also easy to >> encode. > Which is an added bonus, but the original subject under discussion > was the > relations between each address space (equivalent, disjoint, subset/

Hi Chris, > >> You probably want to somehow extend TargetData to encode the address > >> space descriptions, including pointer sizes and address space > >> relationships. > > Hmm, you have an excellent point there, pointer sizes could indeed easily > > have different sizes in different address spaces... That would make > > TargetData indeed a logical

Hi all, I've been a tad busy in the last few weeks, but I don't think this issue is settled yet. > > the relations between each address space (equivalent, disjoint, subset/ > > superset). > > Any thoughts on that? Should they also belong in TargetData? > Only if absolutely required, see below. Is there any other place they would fit in better? What piece of below

Hi, while writing my register allocator, I have come across a case which confuses me because the llvm definition cannot be mapped to machine code. For instance I come across (1) and I reduce it to (2). However a copy instruction cannot move from EDX to CX. What mechanics in LLVM will tell me that I cannot make this move during register allocation, or how can I tell from (1) that I cannot execute

Hi Folks, Attached is a patch against the latest svn, plus new source files. This patch allows the specification of c or assembler versions of various functions at run time if _USE_SSE or _USE_ALTIVEC is specified at compile time. The basic concept is to use function pointers and preprocessor trickery to allow for run-time without changing how the other platforms work, esp. the platform function

On Nov 8, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Jeff Kunkel wrote: > Hi, while writing my register allocator, I have come across a case which confuses me because the llvm definition cannot be mapped to machine code. > > For instance I come across (1) and I reduce it to (2). However a copy instruction cannot move from EDX to CX. What mechanics in LLVM will tell me that I cannot make this move during

So we ran the code on a Windows XP based Atholon XP system and the xmm registers work just fine so it appears that Windows 2000 and below does not support them. We agree on not supporting the non-FP version, however the run time flags need to be settable with a non FP SSE mode so that exceptions are avoided. I thus propose a set of defines like this instead of the ones in our initial patch:

On 9/28/2016 7:30 PM, Quentin Colombet wrote: > Out of curiosity, could describe why this is useful to have such precision in the liveness tracking? RDF is meant to allow optimizations across the whole function. As a result, registers may change between basic blocks, and there is code to recalculate it. Accuracy is required to avoid unnecessary block live-ins. For example, calculate live-ins

Dear list, I am confused on how to explain the interaction term in the context of "treatment contrast". for example, I have an data frame as below: sub group val 1 a group1 3.685625 2 a group1 3.407445 3 a group1 4.040920 4 a group1 2.890875 5 b group1 3.853280 6 b group1 4.113585 7 b group1 3.043250 8 b group1 3.800920 9 c group1 5.394305 10 c

Hello, Consider this code (this is all after register allocation): R0<def> = ... R0 // Set lower half (based on the previous value) R1<def> = ... // Set upper half ... = R0_R1 // Use the pair It is my understanding that the use of the whole pair will need to have some sort of a reaching def, i.e. the code will need at least those flags: R0<def> =

Dear all, To explain my problem I am attaching a demonstration package "myclasspkg": I have the following two S4 classes with similar inheritance: SubSubClassA <- SubClassB <- BaseClass SubSubClassB <- SubClassB <- BaseClass In R I am calling the following functions: > library(myclasspkg) > subA <-

Buenas noches a todos, Estoy descarganado tweets a través del paquete twitteR en dos sistemas diferentes. La configuración del primero, un MacBook Pro, es R version 3.0.2 Patched (2013-12-11 r64449) Platform: x86_64-apple-darwin10.8.0 (64-bit) locale: [1] en_AU.UTF-8/en_AU.UTF-8/en_AU.UTF-8/C/en_AU.UTF-8/en_AU.UTF-8 attached base packages: [1] compiler stats graphics grDevices utils

Buenas; La pregunta va resultar evidente una vez se entienda, espero saber darme a entender. Quiero identificar qué tengo que aprender para poder hacer un sitio web con R. Este sitio web tiene que poder: * Recibir los datos (archivos .csv mutuamente referenciados) que alguien conectado a la red (vos mismo, usted misma) suba. * Procesarlos * Devolver resultados en base a esos datos introducidos.

Hey there, Just a question for you Samba 2.2.x gurus out there :) We have a contingent (a steadily increasing contingent) of Win2K and WinXP workstations. Does anyone here know how to stop the profiles from replicating? If we create a file in the profile dir, say \\PDC\UserHome\profile.doc. It will replicate that to the profile directory, while one file or two files are not a problem, we use