similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH][RFC]: Add fmin/fmax intrinsics

… actually, now that I’m able double-check this, I’m quite surprised to find that we didn’t define fmax(+0,–0) in IEEE–754, which says [paraphrased]: minNum(x,y) is x if x < y, y if y < x, and the number if one is a number and the other is NaN. Otherwise, it is either x or y (this means results might differ among implementations). So I think your proposed semantics are perfectly

This is a problem with all floating point folding, not just with these operations. What Matt is proposing is consistent with how we fold other libm intrinsics. —Owen > On Aug 18, 2014, at 1:22 AM, Mueller-Roemer, Johannes Sebastian <Johannes.Sebastian.Mueller-Roemer at igd.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > Wouldn’t it be better to use the target’s implementation (if there is one)

Hi Carter, I would strongly advise you against this direction. I’m aware of two directions that existing languages go in defining min/max operations: - IEEE 754, C, Fortran, Matlab, OpenCL, and HLSL all define it not to propagate NaNs - C++ (std::min/std::max) and OpenGL define it in the trinary operator manner: (a < b) ? a : b What you’re proposing does not match any existing languages

On Sep 15, 2014, at 4:17 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > I’d be fine with that proposal. I could even be convinced if we wanted to add a pair of NaN-propagating intrinsics as well, for targets and languages that want those semantics, even if I disagree with them. I do think that, if we are using the minnum/maxnum names, we should explicitly note that they are

> On Jul 23, 2018, at 3:40 PM, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 23 July 2018 at 11:56, Arsenault, Matthew via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> The specification for the llvm.minnum/llvm.maxnum intrinsics is too unclear >> right

Hi, The specification for the llvm.minnum/llvm.maxnum intrinsics is too unclear right now to usefully optimize. There are two problems. First the expected behavior for signaling NaNs needs to be clarified. Second, whether the returned value is expected to be canonicalized (as if by llvm.canonicalize). Currently according to the LangRef: Follows the IEEE-754 semantics for minNum, which also

> On Sep 12, 2014, at 10:27 AM, Dan Gohman <dan433584 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > More generally, I don’t see a compelling reason for LLVM to add intrinsic support for the version you’re proposing. Your choice can easily be expanded into IR, and does not have the wide hardware support (particularly in GPUs) that the IEEE version does. > > The IEEE version can also be

Given IEEE-754's sway, and its saying what it does on this point, but given also the popularity of NaN-propagating min and max, how about a compromise? We add intrinsics following the IEEE-754 semantics, but we also follow IEEE-754 (and ARMv8) in renaming them to minnum and maxnum, to clarify which interpretation these intrinsics are using. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > > On Sep 12, 2014, at 2:24 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 12, 2014, at 10:27 AM, Dan Gohman <dan433584 at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> More generally, I don’t see a compelling reason for LLVM to add intrinsic >> support for the version you’re

I have been working on a patch to add support for max/min reductions in LoopVectorize. One of the comments that came up in review is that the implementation could be simplified (and less fragile) if max and min intrinsics were recognized rather than looking for compare-select sequences. The suggestion was to change compare-selects into max and min intrinsic calls during instcombine. The

On Dec 5, 2012, at 8:26 AM, "Redmond, Paul" <paul.redmond at intel.com> wrote: > I have been working on a patch to add support for max/min reductions in LoopVectorize. One of the comments that came up in review is that the implementation could be simplified (and less fragile) if max and min intrinsics were recognized rather than looking for compare-select sequences. > >

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Erik Schnetter <schnetter at cct.lsu.edu>wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 7:54 AM, David Tweed <david.tweed at arm.com> wrote: > >> | LLVM does not currently have special lowering handling for round(), and >> I'll propose a patch to add that, but the larger question is this: should >> fast-math change the tie-breaking

----- Original Message ----- > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Erik Schnetter < > schnetter at cct.lsu.edu > wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 7:54 AM, David Tweed < david.tweed at arm.com > > wrote: > > > > > > > | LLVM does not currently have special lowering handling for round(), > | and >

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 7:54 AM, David Tweed <david.tweed at arm.com> wrote: > | LLVM does not currently have special lowering handling for round(), and > I'll propose a patch to add that, but the larger question is this: should > fast-math change the tie-breaking behavior of > | rint/nearbyint/round, etc. and, if so, should we make a specific effort > to > have all

Hi all, I would like to set up an iterative read & write sequence to avoid reading and writing each file one at a time. Hundreds of data sets to re-calculate.? The code I have works well individually, but would like to set up an iterative read, calculate and write changing the input and output file names each iteration. I? think I have read that there is an R? feature using

Dear list, Could you please tell me the values of the minimum and maximum cutoff frequencies for each coding version of the 44.1 kHz sampled data? For instance, are the values fmin=100 Hz and fmax=12 kHz valid? Thank you very much in advance. Kind regards, ? Fernando A. Marengo Rodriguez, PhD Post-doctoral fellow on Acoustics and Beamforming -- Laboratory of Noise and Vibration (LVA) Federal

On Wednesday, December 05, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > What does the community think? > > It seems inevitable. For the floating point version, please make it very clear > what the behavior of max(-0,+0) and related cases are. The following is our current proposal for llvm.fmax/fmin.*: [1] If exactly one argument is a NaN, the intrinsic returns the other argument.

> It seems inevitable. For the floating point version, please make it very > clear what the behavior of max(-0,+0) and related cases are. Along these lines, AArch64 has an instruction "FMAXNM". It returns the maximum if neither value is NaN, but returns the number if just one value is NaN. This is in addition to an "FMAX" which propagates NaNs. I suspect you'll

Maybe we can have two versions of the intrinsic function, "ordered" and "unordered", just like fcmp has [1]. Would that work ? [1] - http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#fcmp-instruction On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:14 AM, "Schoedel, Kevin P" <kevin.p.schoedel at intel.com> wrote: > At Monday, December 17, 2012 2:05 PM, Nadav Rotem [mailto:nrotem at apple.com]

At Monday, December 17, 2012 2:05 PM, Nadav Rotem [mailto:nrotem at apple.com] wrote: >This part worries me. The new min/max intrinsics will only be useful if we could pattern match cmp/select into them. Yes, that's the obvious alternative. I don't think we have any strong opinion either way, and fcmp/select is certainly easier to implement. -- Kevin Schoedel, Software Developer,