similar to: [LLVMdev] Floating point ordered and unordered comparisons

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:00 PM, <sundeepk at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi All, > > I noticed LLVM target independent side is converting an ordered less than > "setolt" into unordered greater than "setuge" operation. There are no > target hooks to control going from the ordered mode into unordered. > > I am trying to figure out the best way to support

> The function ISD::getSetCCInverse() would probably be useful for you > here: you can use it to transform an unordered operation into an > ordered operation. Thanks for your reply Eli. I will check how to convert unordered operations back to ordered one. I have another related question - is it possible for frontend (clang) to generate unordered operation from the source code? -Sundeep

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 02/25/2017 03:06 AM, vivek pandya via llvm-dev wrote: > > Note: Question is written after describing what I have coded. > > Hello LLVMDevs, > > I am trying to impliment floating point comparsion for an architecture > which > supports following type of floating point comparision if FPU

Note: Question is written after describing what I have coded. Hello LLVMDevs, I am trying to impliment floating point comparsion for an architecture which supports following type of floating point comparision if FPU is available: fcmp.un --> true if one of the operand is NaN fcmp.lt --> ordered less than, if any input NaN then return false fcmp.eq --> ordered equal, if any input NaN

On 03/14/2017 07:16 AM, vivek pandya wrote: > Hello Hal, > setCondCodeAction(expand) for un ordered comparison generates > semantically wrong code for me for example SETUNE gets converted to > SETOE that causes infinite loops. Can you please explain what is happening? It sounds like a bug we should fix. > > What is ideal place where I can convert unordered comparison to un

Hi Sundeep, I am also interested in the load-store lifting transformation. For static globals as-in your example, the transformation in general would rely on a better static global aliasing information that is currently in review http://reviews.llvm.org/D10059 For non-static globals, one problem with loop-based analysis alone is that in a popular embedded benchmark suite, you get serious gains

On 29 August 2013 10:12, Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> wrote: > But this is another case. LLVM IR distinguishes between ordered and unordered compare and X86 backend has appropriate instructions. I think LLVM uses ordered/unordered compare to mean something different to what the x86 instructions do. For example, "not equal": fcmp une == unordered not

But this is another case. LLVM IR distinguishes between ordered and unordered compare and X86 backend has appropriate instructions. But during DAG selection we just lose this information and always generate unordered fcmp. I.e. in case of ordered fcmp the vcomiss should be generated, and in case of unordered - vucomiss. - Elena -----Original Message----- From: Dr D. Chisnall [mailto:dc552 at

I don't understand under what situation ordered factor rather than unordered factor should be used. Could somebody give me some examples? What are the implications of order vs. unordered factors? Could somebody recommend a textbook to me?

Should I open a ticket for this? - Elena From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 19:51 To: Demikhovsky, Elena Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Ordered / Unordered FP compare are not handled properly on X86 On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com<mailto:elena.demikhovsky at

On 29 Aug 2013, at 08:19, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > If so, a compare that used that instruction would have to become more > like an "invoke" with a landingpad for the exception and so on, > wouldn't it? The current fcmp can already distinguish between ordered > and unordered, because ucomiss provides that information. There are currently

I found that there is no diff in code generator for Ordered / Unordered FP compare instructions. FUCOMISS, FUCOMISD are generated in the both cases. - Elena --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Demikhovsky, Elena < elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> wrote: > I found that there is no diff in code generator for Ordered / Unordered > FP compare instructions. > FUCOMISS, FUCOMISD are generated in the both cases. > > > Yes. That's how fcmp is defined in LangRef. -Eli -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

Hi All, I am reading about LLVM IR atomics (http://llvm.org/docs/Atomics.html) and get confused about the difference between "Unordered" and "Monotonic". In particular, I am not sure I understand the statement of "It essentially guarantees that if you take all the operations affecting a specific address, a consistent ordering exists.". For me, it means that for the

Hello all, I am writing to get some feedback on an optimization that I would like to upstream. The basic idea is to localize global variables inside loops so that it can be allocated into registers. For example, transform the following sequence static int gbl_var; void foo() { for () { ...access gbl_var... } } into something like static int gbl_var; void foo() { int lcl_var;

On 29 August 2013 06:31, Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> wrote: > Should I open a ticket for this? I think he was saying this is intended behaviour. Isn't the difference between ucomiss and comiss just whether an exception is raised for NaN? If so, a compare that used that instruction would have to become more like an "invoke" with a landingpad for the

I'm trying to change an unordered factor into an ordered factor: data96$RV961327 <- data96$V961327 data96$RV961327[data96$V961327 %in% levels(data96$V961327)[4]] <- NA data96$RV961327[data96$V961327 %in% levels(data96$V961327)[5]] <- NA data96$RV961327 <- factor(data96$RV961327) attributes(data96$RV961327) levels(data96$RV961327) data96$RV961327 data96$RRV961327 <-

I am attempted to examine the temporal independence of my data set and think I need an unordered multinomial logistic regression (or logit model) with repeated measures to do so. The data in question is location of chickens. Chickens could be in any one of 5 locations when a snapshot sample was taken. The locations of chickens (bird) in 8 pens (pen) were scored twice a day (AMPM) for 20 days

Hello; I am having a problems with the interpretation of models using ordered or unordered predictors. I am running models in lmer but I will try to give a simplified example data set using lm. Both in the example and in my real data set I use a predictor variable referring to 3 consecutive days of an experiment. It is a factor, and I thought it would be more correct to consider it ordered. Below

Hi, I am trying to generate all unordered combinations of a set of numbers / characters, and I can only find a (very) clumsy way of doing this using expand.grid. For example, all unordered combinations of the numbers 0, 1, 2 are: 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 1 0, 0, 2 0, 1, 1 0, 1, 2 0, 2, 2 1, 1, 1 1, 1, 2 1, 2, 2 2, 2, 2 (I have not included, for example, 1, 0, 0, since it is equivalent to 0, 0, 1). I have