similar to: multiprecision add/sub

> On Feb 21, 2017, at 9:54 PM, Nemanja Ivanovic via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I believe that providing additional intrinsics that would directly produce the ISD::ADDC/ISD::SUBC nodes would provide the additional advantage of being able to directly produce these nodes for code that doesn't have anything to do with multiprecision addition/subtraction. I am

On 02/16/2017 12:08 PM, Stephen Canon wrote: >> On Feb 16, 2017, at 9:12 AM, Bagel <bagel99 at gmail.com >> <mailto:bagel99 at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> I figured that the optimization of this would bedifficult (else it would >> have already been done :-)) > > Don’t make this assumption. There’s lots of opportunities for optimization > scattered

It takes two "llvm.uadd.with.overflow" instances to model the add-with-carry when there is a carry-in. Look at the IR generated by the example. I figured that the optimization of this would bedifficult (else it would have already been done :-)). And would this optimization have to be done for every architecture? On 02/15/2017 04:28 PM, Stephen Canon wrote: > > Why do you think

Stephen Canon via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Why do you think this requires new intrinsics instead of teaching the optimizer what to do with the existing intrinsics? IMO, as a multiprecision math library maker, the "teaching the optimizer what to do with the existing intrinsics" approach is much better as long as it can be made to work. If one is

Hi Tom, Matt, I'm running into strange issues with the cos test (piglit generated_tests/cl/builtin/math/builtin-float-cos-1.0.generated.c) I have been seeing random failures (incorrect results) for some time and tried to investigate. the weird part is that the failures are not 100% reproducible, sometimes the tests pass, or partly pass (it's usually float8 and float16 subtests that

Hi Craig, On 03.07.19 17:33, Craig Topper wrote: > Don't the CreateICmp calls return a Value* with an i1 type? But then > they are added to an i8 type? Not sure that works.  I had that initially: auto cf = IRB.CreateICmpULT(Incr, ConstantInt::get(Int8Ty, 1)); auto carry = IRB.CreateZExt(cf, Int8Ty); Incr = IRB.CreateAdd(Incr, carry); it makes no difference to the generated assembly

Hi all, After searching for a decent compiler backend for ages (google sometimes isn't helpful), I recently stumbled upon LLVM. Woot!! I work on bignum arithmetic (I'm a professional mathematician) and have recently decided to switch from developing GPL'd bignum code to BSD licensed code. (See http://www.mpir.org/ which I contributed to for a while - a fork of GMP). Please bear with

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Bill Hart <goodwillhart at googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi Eli, > > On 11 June 2010 22:44, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Bill Hart <goodwillhart at googlemail.com> wrote: >>> a) What plans are there to support addition, subtraction, >>> multiplication, division,

Do you have plans to add other intrinsics? I'm curious as to why there is an llvm.sin intrinsic and an llvm.cos intrinsic, but no llvm.atan intrinsic. Why is there an llvm.pow intrinsic but no llvm.log intrinsic? Also, have you thought about integer intrinsics like multiprecision multiply (u32xu32->u64) and multiprecision divide (u64/u32->(dividend:u32,remainder:u32))? Regards,

hie 1...i'm trying to carryout a relibility testusing cronbach's alpha what fuctin do i use. 2.. this is more of a statistical question.if the alpha value for all the variables is negative what does it mean. and if the alpha value is negative for all tyha variables but is greater than 0.7 for some sections of the variables what does that mean thanks in advance

Hi I know this subject has been mentioned before but from the mail archives I'm under the impression that this is not possible ? I'm trying to carryout the equivalent of ls -l in R to give some date/time label to each of my objects If the case is that there is no equivalent, is it possible to list all objects in an environment that share a common component ? So that the common

I have written a COM32 program which pxelinux loads it and executes when machine is booted over network. And the COM32 program should be blocked till it receives an instruction from deployment server in UDP packet. I am looking for a network interrupt that will make my machine to wait for an incoming udp packet, so that my server can send udp packet, and reboot/shutdown the machine. I would

Hello LLVM-dev, I’m writing some crypto math code in C, and trying to make it as simple and portable as possible, so that there won’t be any unforeseen platform bugs. Ideally, I’d like the compiler to as much work as possible for me, and I’m wondering if you know how to make clang (or gcc, for that matter) do some of this. So I have a couple of questions. If this is the wrong list to ask for

I'm trying to work out LLVM code which generates something similar to the following when adding large multiword numbers stored as separate words: ADD x1 x1 ADC x2 y2 ADC x3 y3 etc, where such a three argument add like ADC on x86 (which includes a carry in the addition) is available as a machine op. The background to this is that I'm trying to implement fast multiword addition in

Hi, I know there's been some talk about bignums already, this is similar to it, but not exactly the same. I'm currently using LLVM for my master thesis. The goal is to make a compiler for zero-knowledge proofs of knowledge protocols. This compiler should target embedded devices. There's a language called the protocol implementation language in which these protocols should be

The help has > Description: > 'nrow' and 'ncol' return the number of rows or columns present in 'x'. > 'NCOL' and 'NROW' do the same treating a vector as 1-column matrix. and > x: a vector, array or data frame I'm proposing to extend these two convenience functions to also work ``correctly'' for generalized versions of

Hi All, The following code : void hexagon2( int *a, int *res ) { int i = 100; while ( i-- ) { *res++ = *a++; } } gets compiled as a sub-optimal Software loop on LLVM 9.0 instead of a Hardware loop, whereas it was compiled as a Hardware Loop in LLVM 7.0. This is the final assembly code generated by LLVM 9.0 : .text .file "main.c" .globl hexagon2 // --

Hello, I have an optimisation issue in an llvm IR pass - the issue being that unnecessary instructions are generated in the final assembly (with -O3). I want to create the following assembly snippet: mov dl,BYTE PTR [rsi+rdi*1] add dl,0x1 adc dl,0x0 mov BYTE PTR [rsi+rdi*1],dl however what is created is (variant #1): mov dl,BYTE PTR [rsi+rdx*1] add dl,0x1 cmp

On 12 June 2010 00:51, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Bill Hart <goodwillhart at googlemail.com> wrote: >> Hi Eli, >> >> On 11 June 2010 22:44, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Bill Hart <goodwillhart at googlemail.com> wrote:

CGP also relies on the add being a simple two's complement add, since it will transform define void @test1(i64 %a, i64 %b, i64* %res_i64, i1* %res_i1) { entry: %add = add i64 %b, %a %cmp = icmp ult i64 %add, %a store i1 %cmp, i1* %res_i1 store i64 %add, i64* %res_i64 ret void } to define void @test1(i64 %a, i64 %b, i64* %res_i64, i1* %res_i1) { entry: %uadd.overflow = call