similar to: [LLVMdev] Probable error in InstCombine

Hi all, I have a very simple test case (thanks to bugpoint) that hit an assert in reassociate. (the assert is (C->getType()->isIntOrIntVectorTy() && "Cannot NEG a nonintegral value!"), function getNeg) The function is taking a Constant as argument, but the assert does not expect an undef. I’m not sure whose responsibility is it to handle that (caller?). Do we have to

Hi, Can you add the following two publications from our group to the LLVM publications page. - *Alive-FP: Automated Verification of Floating Point Based Peephole Optimizations in LLVM [pdf] <http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/~santosh.nagarakatte/papers/alive-fp-sas16.pdf> *David Menendez, Santosh Nagarakatte, and Aarti Gupta *To Appear in the Proceedings of the 23rd Static Analysis

Hello may situation is the next: Asterisk <--> NAT1 (router)<---> internet <--> NAT2 (router) <--> x-lite ^ | ip phone (cisco) Asterisk and de cisco phone are in the same LAN. I want to make a call between the x-lite and the ip phone. I can do the call but there is only audio from de ip-phone

Hello, I recently came across an OpenCL kernel in which an int vector type was subtracted from the INT_MIN constant, e.g. int2 v2 = INT_MIN - (int2)(0); INT_MIN was defined as #define INT_MIN (-2147483648) Clang in OpenCL modes (-x cl) produces the following error: vector_conversion.c:12:42: error: can't convert between vector values of different size ('long' and 'int2'

On April 25, 2014 at 9:52:35 AM, Eric Christopher (echristo at gmail.com) wrote: Hi Michael, > I’d like to propose to extend LLVM IR intrinsics set, adding new ones for > safe-division. There are intrinsics for detecting overflow errors, like > sadd.with.overflow, and the intrinsics I’m proposing will augment this set. > > The new intrinsics will return a structure with two

> We are permitted to turn 'sub nsw i32 %x, 1' into 'add nsw i32 %x, -1' nsw also has the same problem: sub nsw int_min, int_min is 0 but add nsw int_min, (-int_min) is poison -- Sanjoy

Hi, I recently came across the following in __floatsidf in compiler-rt: __floatsidf(int a) { ... if (a < 0) { ... a = -a; In the case where a == INT_MIN, is this negation not undefined behaviour? AIUI this function is used for software emulation on targets that have no hardware floating point support. Perhaps there is an in-built assumption

On April 25, 2014 at 10:48:18 AM, Reid Kleckner (rnk at google.com) wrote: On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Filip Pizlo <fpizlo at apple.com> wrote: The sdiv operation in LLVM IR only makes sense for C and its very direct relatives.  The amount of control flow necessary to represent a safe division for any other language is ghastly.  (a/b) becomes something like (b != 0 ? ((a != INT_MIN ||

On 10/03/2013 01:22 AM, Andrew Trick wrote: > > I’m not sure how to make sense of an NUW flag coming from a sub. > > NSW is just a misnomer for signed overflow. SCEV canonicalizes sub a,b to add a, (-b). Unfortunately, signed overflow is not the same thing for sub and add... > > sub nsw %a, %b != add nsw %a, (-1 * %b) > > sub nsw i32, -1, INT_MIN is true. > > add

Hi, I would like to figure out the meaning of the return value of these two functions. Here are the default definitions I find from R source code: static int altreal_Is_sorted_default(SEXP x) { return UNKNOWN_SORTEDNESS; } static int altreal_No_NA_default(SEXP x) { return 0; } I guess the macro *UNKNOWN_SORTEDNESS *in *Is_sorted* and 0 in *No_NA *simply means unknown sorted/NA status of

The problem seems that ":" always coerces to integer, but should not.. 9.9:12 ## R: [1] 9 10 11 ## S-plus 3.4: [1] 9.9 10.9 11.9 ## and many more examples.... -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or

On May 2, 2014, at 4:25 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > I'm still not happy with hiding the explicit control flow, but I can achieve the same effect as: > if( div by zero ) throw > (r, o, d) = safe.div(a,b); > if( o ) { > r = a; > } > > i.e. emit a separate guard branch for the interesting condition and not utilize the value

On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Cameron McInally <cameron.mcinally at nyu.edu>wrote: > More productive (IMO) is to emit explicit guards against the undefined >> behavior in your language, much as -fsanitize does for undefined behavior >> in C++. Then work to build a mode where a specific target can take >> advantage of target specific trapping behaviors to emit these

Hello to everybody, I'm working on some improvements on trip count computation with ScalarEvolution analysis. Considering the following test ;----------------------------------------------------------------------------; define void @foo(i32 %a, i32 %b, i32 %s) #0 { entry: %cmp = icmp sgt i32 %s, 0 %cmp15 = icmp sgt i32 %a, %b %or.cond = and i1 %cmp, %cmp15 br i1 %or.cond, label

On 04/13/2015 11:32 PM, Martin Maechler wrote: > >> Hi, >> > as.integer("5000000000") >> [1] 2147483647 >> Warning message: >> inaccurate integer conversion in coercion > >> > as.integer("-5000000000") >> [1] NA >> Warning message: >> inaccurate integer conversion in coercion >

I'm wondering if WRE Section 5.2 should be a little more explicit about misuse of integer values other than NA, 0, and 1 in LGLSXPs.? I'm thinking of this passage: > Logical values are sent as 0 (FALSE), 1 (TRUE) or INT_MIN = -2147483648 (NA, but only if NAOK is true), and the compiled code should return one of these three values. (Non-zero values other than INT_MIN are mapped to

On Oct 3, 2013, at 7:15 AM, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/03/2013 01:22 AM, Andrew Trick wrote: >> >> I’m not sure how to make sense of an NUW flag coming from a sub. >> >> NSW is just a misnomer for signed overflow. SCEV canonicalizes sub a,b to add a, (-b). Unfortunately, signed overflow is not the same thing for sub and

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 17:05:59 +0000 David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 08:50 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > It's not really an oops, just a warning that stack space got quiet > > tight. > > > > The problem seems to be that the br netfilter code is nesting far too > > deeply and recursing several times. Looks like a design

On Oct 1, 2013, at 6:45 AM, Michele Scandale <michele.scandale at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello to everybody, > > I'm working on some improvements on trip count computation with ScalarEvolution > analysis. > Considering the following test > > ;----------------------------------------------------------------------------; > define void @foo(i32 %a, i32 %b, i32 %s) #0

On 10/03/2013 04:15 PM, Michele Scandale wrote: > On 10/03/2013 01:22 AM, Andrew Trick wrote: >> >> I’m not sure how to make sense of an NUW flag coming from a sub. >> >> NSW is just a misnomer for signed overflow. SCEV canonicalizes sub a,b to add a, (-b). Unfortunately, signed overflow is not the same thing for sub and add... >> >> sub nsw %a, %b != add nsw