similar to: Vectorizing minimum without function attributes

Thanks for the reply. I should say I'm actually working on 6.0, but I don't think this part of the code changed much since. These are traces I made with GDB optimizing a loop with floats and then integers, showing where they diverge: https://gist.github.com/nlw0/58ed9fda8e8944a9cb5e5a20f6038fcf This is the point I believe we need to set the function attribute for the vectorization to work

Thanks for checking this out. I think your second comment on 35538 must be precisely what I'm talking about. I came up with this IR that might be used for testing: ``` define float @minloop(float* nocapture readonly) #0 { top: %1 = load float, float* %0 br label %loop loop: %2 = phi i64 [ %8, %loop ], [ 1, %top ] %3 = phi float [ %7, %loop ], [ %1, %top ] %4 = getelementptr

This problem has been driving me crazy for a week. Fedora Core 4, Cups 1.2.1 Samba 3.0.23a Thanks in advance. -- Curtis Maurand Senior Network & Systems Engineer BlueTarp Financial, Inc. 443 Congress St. 6th Floor Portland, ME 04101 207.797.5900 x233 (office) 207.797.3833 (fax) mailto:cmaurand@bluetarp.com http://www.bluetarp.com -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and

Following the directions in: http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2006/04/19/rest-on-rails.html?page=2 I get through the: rake db:migrate With the tables created properly but then when I run the: rake test:units I get a failure: ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: RuntimeError: ERROR C23502 Mnull value in column "title" violates not-null constraint FexecMain.c L1750

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.

I'm trying to get Samba to print with CUPS and the universal postscript driver. I've followed the HOWTO at http://us4.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Collection/CUPS-printing.html (a truely great work, IMO). However, I cannot get a WinXP or Win2K machine to automatically install the driver when I double-click on the printer after browsing the share. I've done everything up

… 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)

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. > >

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

Hi, I’d like to re-propose adding intrinsics for fmin / fmax. These can be used to implement the equivalent libm functions as defined in C99 and OpenCL, which R600 and AArch64 at least have instructions with the same semantics. This is not equivalent to a simple fcmp + select due to its handling of NaNs. This has been proposed before, but never delivered

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

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 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

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 08/03/2015 18:07, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Nicholas Chapman > <admin at indigorenderer.com <mailto:admin at indigorenderer.com>> wrote: > > Hi all, > I have identified what seems to be a limitation of LLVM with > regard to marking 'sret functions' as pure/readonly. > > For some context - I have

Hi, I’ve been investigating https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43374, which is about clang/llvm producing code that triggers a floating point exception when x is NaN, when targeting ARM, in the below code example. int bar(float x) { return x!=x ? 0 : 1; } The C99 standard states in section 7.12.14: """ The relational and equality operators support the usual mathematical

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

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