similar to: RFC: Complex in LLVM

Ahead of the Wednesday’s roundtable at the developers’ conference, here is version three of the proposal for first-class complex types in LLVM. I was not able to add Krzysztof Parzyszek’s suggestion of a “cunzip” intrinsic returning two vectors as I could not find examples of intrinsics that return two values at the IR level. The Hexagon intrinsics declared to return two values do not actually

All, Here is the second revision of the proposal for a complex type in LLVM. It clarifies a few things that came up during discussion and adds additional operations for complex types. -David Proposal to Support Complex Operations in LLVM ---------------------------------------------- Revision History v1 - Initial proposal [1] v2 - This proposal - Added complex of

Hi, There’s growing interest among our users to make better use of dedicated hardware instructions for complex math and I would like to re-start the discussion on the topic. Given that this original thread was started a while ago apologies if I missed anything already discussed earlier on the list or the round-table. The original mail is quoted below. In particular, I’m interested in the AArch64

Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 19:56, David Greene via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> llvm.creal.* - Overloaded intrinsic to extract the real part of a >> complex value >> declare float @llvm.creal.c32(c32 %Val) >> declare double @llvm.creal.c64(c64 %Val) > > What are

Following a discussion about numerical performance on comp.lang.functional recently I just tried running a simple C mandelbrot benchmark that uses C99's complex arithmetic using gcc and llvm-gcc on a 2.1GHz Opteron 2352 running Debian: gcc: 5.727s llvm-gcc: 1.393s There is still 20% room for improvement but LLVM is >4x faster than gcc here. Sweet. Here's the code: #include

Hi Manuel, Here's another commit authored through the web interface where no discussion or reviewership information is apparent on the mailing list. All we see in cases like this are a few unthreaded list posts by the original author followed by an SVN revision number: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140714/226166.html For any patch that's submitted for

On 17/07/2014 20:27, Eric Christopher wrote: > Hi Alp, > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: >> Hi Manuel, >> >> Here's another commit authored through the web interface where no discussion >> or reviewership information is apparent on the mailing list. > If you look at the phab review, it's the same there. Does

> Why? I'd prefer we avoid introducing even more special cases. Is there > any reason why we should not define "complex <scalar type>", or to be > more restrictive, "complex <floating-point type>"? I really don't like > the idea of excluding 128-bit complex types, and I think that we can > have a generic facility. Hal, we had 128-bit

Hi! I want to know if a given element <- ('c64') is part of a vector<- ('c64', 'amiga', 'atari'). Does a function exist for this which gives back a logical value? thankx db

> The C55 and C64 builds diverge in exactly the same place as before (byte > 0x1000). The output from C55 build 11387 (svn head) diverges from C55 build > 11343 slightly later (byte 0x1116). Similarly, the output from C64 build > 11387 (svn head) diverges from C64 build 11343 slightly later (byte 0x1126). > So, your change clearly had an effect, not just on the 16-bit machine,

greetings, a previous install and updated centos 6.4 from dvd 1 x86_64 got trashed. not sure of cause. no big deal. install practice never hurts. :-) now, installation is: CentOS-6.4-x86_64-bin-DVD1.iso installed as; CentOS (2.6.32-358.el6.x86_64) - root (hd1,2) SL-63-i386-2012-08-24-LiveCD.iso installed and updated as; Scientific Linux (2.6.32-431.1.2.el6.i686) - root (hd1,5) /dev/sdb5

Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of David Greene >> via llvm-dev >> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 10:05 AM >> To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >> Subject: [EXT] [llvm-dev] Complex proposal v2 >>

When I compile this code which includes call to crealf, $ cat foo1.c #include <complex.h> float foo1(complex float z) { return crealf(z); } clang emits a call to crealf, $ clang foo1.c -S -o - -O3 foo1: # @foo1 .cfi_startproc # BB#0: # %entry jmp crealf # TAILCALL while gcc does it in two move

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Akira Hatanaka <ahatanak at gmail.com> wrote: > When I compile this code which includes call to crealf, > > $ cat foo1.c > #include <complex.h> > > float foo1(complex float z) { return crealf(z); } > > clang emits a call to crealf, > > $ clang  foo1.c -S -o - -O3 > foo1:                                   # @foo1 >

On Apr 27, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Akira Hatanaka <ahatanak at gmail.com> wrote: >> while gcc does it in two move instructions: >> >> $ gcc foo1.c -S -o -O3 >> foo1: >> .LFB0: >> .cfi_startproc >> movq %xmm0, -8(%rsp) >> movss -8(%rsp), %xmm0 >> >>

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Dan Gohman wrote: > LLVM knows what all the types of the intrinsic functions are; I thought, > why are users (including llvm-gcc...) required to duplicate all this > information in order to use them? I mean in order to call > getOrInsertFunction to get declarations for them. That is an excellent question! :) In the bad old days, we used to allow intrinsics

LLVM knows what all the types of the intrinsic functions are; I thought, why are users (including llvm-gcc...) required to duplicate all this information in order to use them? I mean in order to call getOrInsertFunction to get declarations for them. So I wrote this patch, which allows all this code to be generated automatically. Is this a good approach? Dan -- Dan Gohman, Cray Inc. <djg at

On 4/3/23 15:50, Michael Milton wrote: > Okay, but I'm afraid this will only mean something to Rust users. The > reason being that we encountered this issue in extendr: a Rust > extension library for R. The specific compiler errors we encounter > happen because bindgen (the Rust code generation library) read the > changed R header files, and generated a new type definition

Hi Tomas, Thanks for this explanation. As you can probably tell I'm not much of a C person, so I didn't realise this change would be invisible to C users. I suppose R's stability contract only applies to C, and therefore changes that break other languages such as Rust are out of scope. You are right that this error is confused by bindgen's inability to handle anonymous types, but

Hi there... I scanned the archives and did some Google'ing ... can find some references to these errors but didn't find a solution. This started when upgrading some servers from 5.5 to 5.6 release. It's net-snmp creating a lot of errors in the /var/log/messages suddenly. I do believe this is only happening on 64 bit installations but not 100% sure yet... [root at mail1