similar to: [LLVMdev] Alignments in LLVM IR

I am trying to create basic descriptive statistics for a spatial dataset using moving windows of variable sizes. I found the filter(dataset, rep(1/a,1)) very useful for obtaining averages for a given moving window size "a" (a is the window size within a column of data in a matrix - the filter is applied to all columns automatically) I could not find anything analogous for

On 12/13/13 4:00 AM, Mario Schwalbe wrote: > Hi all, > > although I feel like this is a too simple question, I can't find the answer > right now. > > I have a pass that changes the alignment constraints of global variables > of a module, which doesn't affect any loads and stores of them. So how > do I get the loads' and stores' alignment constraints also

Hello, I would like to run a series of regressions on my data (response variable over time): 1) regression from T1 to T2 2) regressions from T1 through T3 3) regression from T1 through T4, etc. I have been struggling to find a way to do this through commands, as opposed to cutting up the data manually (my dataset has over 6000 rows/observations). An illustrative dataset can be created thusly:

Hi all, although I feel like this is a too simple question, I can't find the answer right now. I have a pass that changes the alignment constraints of global variables of a module, which doesn't affect any loads and stores of them. So how do I get the loads' and stores' alignment constraints also updated to match my changes? Is there any pass that does so? Ideally without

hi all, i've taken over the maintainership of dovecot's pkgsrc on NetBSD - please send me your ideas, questions and comments related to dovecot on NetBSD. FreeBSD's port has currently some more 'features' than the pkgsrc, i'm going to add some of them - any feedback is appreciated. bye, TOM -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed...

Hello, I have a data frame containing time (e.g. GMT), and I would like to create/add a new variable that would be the computation of the elapsed time since the first observation. Does anyone have a suggestion for an easy way to do this? I am having trouble creating a new variable that would contain just the first time observation (then I could take difference between actual time and

Hi , This is regrading ,with below commit Revision 256571 - (view) (download) - [select for diffs] Modified Tue Dec 29 12:18:07 2015 CST (5 months ago) by mcrosier File length: 35649 byte(s) Diff to previous 254562 (colored) Add command line options to force function/loop alignments. These are being added for testing purposes. http://reviews.llvm.org/D15648 How do we enable/disable above

On 5/24/12 5:41 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Kostya, I'm also curious to know where Nuno is going with this, and the > details of his design. I'm worried he might be reinventing the wheel. I'm > also worried that he may be inventing a square wheel :) I believe Nuno's goal is to prevent run-time exploitation of software. Nuno, please correct me if I'm wrong. And

Hi all, A quick note just to let people know that as of this past Friday my go at this work has been fully landed. It ended up being a back-burner item, so it took longer than I would have liked to get completed. None the less, the changes made were: 1) The IRBuilders in LLVM, Clang, and Polly were all updated to create only the new form of the memory intrinsics. 2) All LLVM passes to understand

Hi Daniel, a quick question (and kind-of a follow-up to <https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-July/115665.html>): Do the pointers have to be aligned even if the size is 0? It would be nice to have this stated explicitly in the LangRef. Kind regards, Ralf On 26.03.2018 22:43, Daniel Neilson via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi all, >  A quick note just to let people know that as of

Hi Kostya, I'm also curious to know where Nuno is going with this, and the details of his design. I'm worried he might be reinventing the wheel. I'm also worried that he may be inventing a square wheel :) > I noticed your commits related to -fbounds-checking and have some questions. > The functionality of this new phase seems to (partially?) overlap with > AddressSanitizer

Hello, As far as I know, there is no MPX pass in LLVM (though the x86-64 backend already declares MPX registers and instructions). I wonder if anyone is currently working on the LLVM pass for MPX instrumentation, similar to Pointer Checker in gcc. If yes, could anyone elaborate on the status and accessability to other researchers? And if any help is needed? Prof. Santosh Nagarakatte, the author

I am working on a custom LLVM backend for a 16 bit architecture. For my architecture, I need smaller array alignments for arrays created on the stack. For example, consider the following code at the start of a C function: char localBuff[20]; char localBuff2[6]; this gets converted by Clang into this: %localBuff = alloca [20 x i8], align 16 %localBuff2 = alloca [6 x i8], align 1 Note

Hi John, On 25 May 2016 at 16:11, John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Pierre, > > Stepping up a level, what is your goal in replacing calls to malloc() and > free()? Is it any different than what SAFECode, SoftBound, or ASan do? > That's a good question. I didn't knew about SoftBound until now, so thank you for the name =). Anyway here is what I

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Christopher Lamb wrote: > Here's a related question. It seems that there might be a benefit in knowing > about two alignment values for a load/store. The alignment of the load/store > itself, but potentially also the alignment of the base pointer used for the > load/store. Having an alignment attribute on pointer types would solve both > these issues, but

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:23 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 5/24/12 5:41 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > > Hi Kostya, I'm also curious to know where Nuno is going with this, and > the > > details of his design. I'm worried he might be reinventing the wheel. > I'm > > also worried that he may be inventing a square wheel :) > >

The ring element addresses are passed between components with different alignments assumptions. Thus, if guest/userspace selects a pointer and host then gets and dereferences it, we might need to decrease the compiler-selected alignment to prevent compiler on the host from assuming pointer is aligned. This actually triggers on ARM with -mabi=apcs-gnu - which is a deprecated configuration, but it

The ring element addresses are passed between components with different alignments assumptions. Thus, if guest/userspace selects a pointer and host then gets and dereferences it, we might need to decrease the compiler-selected alignment to prevent compiler on the host from assuming pointer is aligned. This actually triggers on ARM with -mabi=apcs-gnu - which is a deprecated configuration, but it

I recently noticed that all globals bigger than 16 bytes are being 16 byte aligned by LLVM (assuming there isn't an explicitly requested alignment). I'd really rather avoid this, at least for the XCore backend. I tracked this down to the following code in TargetData.cpp: if (GV->hasInitializer() && GVAlignment == 0) { if (Alignment < 16) { // If the global

On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 09:34:00PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2020/4/6 ??8:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > The ring element addresses are passed between components with different > > alignments assumptions. Thus, if guest/userspace selects a pointer and > > host then gets and dereferences it, we might need to decrease the > > compiler-selected alignment to