similar to: sieve vacation message if ....

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 14:46:21 +0200, Stephan Bosch stated: >Op 21-6-2017 om 19:16 schreef lejeczek: >> hi fellas >> >> generic construct for(if possible): reply vacation message if >> address is not from add1 at com1 add2 at com2 >> >> would you share? > >require "vacation"; > >if not address "from" ["add1 at com1",

Op 23-6-2017 om 16:15 schreef Larry Rosenman: > On 6/23/17, 9:13 AM, "dovecot on behalf of Jerry" <dovecot-bounces at dovecot.org on behalf of jerry at seibercom.net> wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 14:46:21 +0200, Stephan Bosch stated: > > >Op 21-6-2017 om 19:16 schreef lejeczek: > >> hi fellas > >> > >>

On 6/23/17, 9:13 AM, "dovecot on behalf of Jerry" <dovecot-bounces at dovecot.org on behalf of jerry at seibercom.net> wrote: On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 14:46:21 +0200, Stephan Bosch stated: >Op 21-6-2017 om 19:16 schreef lejeczek: >> hi fellas >> >> generic construct for(if possible): reply vacation message if >> address is not

Op 21-6-2017 om 19:16 schreef lejeczek: > hi fellas > > generic construct for(if possible): reply vacation message if address > is not from add1 at com1 add2 at com2 > > would you share? require "vacation"; if not address "from" ["add1 at com1", "add2 at com2"] { vacation "I am on vacation."; } Regards, Stephan.

Hi R-devel, If you did read my survey on Rhelp about reporting, you may have seen that I am implementing a way to handle outputs for R (mainly target output destinations: xHTML and TeX). In fact: I does have something that works for basic objects, entirely done with S4 classes, with the results visible at: http://www.stat.ucl.ac.be/ROMA/sample.htm http://www.stat.ucl.ac.be/ROMA/sample.pdf To

Hi Pranav, > I am not able to understand the No Signed Wrap property. My problem is in the > Instruction combiner which combines two operations - > add1 = add 'nsw' x 5 > add2 = add 'nsw' add1 1 > into > add2 = add x 6. // No 'nsw' property in the combined operation. > > From the comments in the Instruction Combiner I can see that the nsw flag /

Hello, I am trying to figure out, what vrp propagation does in llvm. I tried this program: #include <stdio.h> int main() { int s = 0; int j = 0; for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { j = j+i+1; s+=j; } return (s+j); } And got this under optimized version ( I don't want everything to be eliminated) define i32 @main()

Hi, I am not able to understand the No Signed Wrap property. My problem is in the Instruction combiner which combines two operations - add1 = add 'nsw' x 5 add2 = add 'nsw' add1 1 into add2 = add x 6. // No 'nsw' property in the combined operation. >From the comments in the Instruction Combiner I can see that the nsw flag / property is "conservatively

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Anastasiya Ruzhanskaya via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I am trying to print it like this (maybe here is smth wrong?) > > > LazyValueInfo &LV = getAnalysis<LazyValueInfoWrapperPass>().getLVI(); > DominatorTree &DT = > getAnalysis<DominatorTreeWrapperPass>().getDomTree(); > LV.printLVI(F,

I am primarily interested in phi nodes and their induction variables, in ValueTracking file there is an analysis of them, but if the upper bound is inf, it is not working? 2017-08-07 11:41 GMT+02:00 Anastasiya Ruzhanskaya < anastasiya.ruzhanskaya at frtk.ru>: > So, it is not supported to determine by this instruction : %cmp = icmp slt > i32 %i.03, 99, > that %i.03 = phi i32 [ 0,

> Then why does the Release Note say > " the operation is guaranteed to not overflow". It means that the person who wrote the IR has guaranteed that there's no overflow (by some means) so LLVM can assume it during optimisation. This guarantee might come from doing explicit checks before executing the add/sub; or perhaps from performing the operation after a sext so that the

Hi, I am trying to understand the semantics of Instructions in llvm. Are the following instructions semantically same? * %add2 = add nsw i32 %add, %add1 %add3 = add i32 %add, %add1* Based on my understanding from the Language Reference Manual, I think they are different. But then why is the *gvn* pass detecting *%add3* as redundant and deleting it? Your views are appreciated. Rekha

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Rekha R <rekharamapai at nitc.ac.in> wrote: > Ok. Got it. > > If *add nsw* overflows, this results in undefined value. > But then *add* on same arguments results in well-defined value. > > Hence treating first one as redundant based on the second is acceptable. > But vice versa is not. > If they are in different code paths, sure.

On 19 June 2011 15:46, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> I am not able to understand the No Signed Wrap property. My problem is in the >> Instruction combiner which combines two operations - >> add1 = add 'nsw' x 5 >> add2 = add 'nsw' add1 1 >> into >> add2 = add x 6.  // No 'nsw' property in the combined operation.

IMHO; On undefined behaviour we can do whatever we want. If the "add nsw" overflows this would lead to undefined behaviour. Therefore we can assume that "add", with the same arguments will not overflow. On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > On 23 July 2014 06:25, Rekha R <rekharamapai at nitc.ac.in> wrote: >

I am a 62 year old beginner in Ubuntu. Thanks for any help, guidance, suggestions on this problem! I have used commands like the following to be certain that I have an active com port: dmesg | grep ttyS rm com1 ln -s /dev/ttyS0 com1 So I suspect the solution lies somewhere in WINE. If all else fails I will get a USB to SERIAL converter cable and try that. My wife has an Abbott Labs Freestyle

Maybe it would illustrative to give an IR example of the case I'm interested in. Consider define void @"julia_transform_bvn_derivs_hessian!"(double* %data, double* %data2, double *%data3, double *%out) { %element11 = getelementptr inbounds double, double* %data, i32 1 %load10 = load double, double* %data %load11 = load double, double* %element11 %element21 =

Hello, I have the following setup on linux 2.6.32... CentOS 6.x : ipsec tunnel eth0-10.255.3.254/25 - eth1-pub add1 <-> eth1-pub add2 - eth0-10.255.5.254/25 I am trying to SNAT remote private address 10.255.5.128/25 packets when they come out of the ipsec tunnel to make it appear like it was from local address 10.255.3.254. I am doing a source ping from the right side to a device on the

Hi, cloning/checkout llvm-project on Windows fails for me with: C:\Users\KaiNacke\vscode>git clone git://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git master Cloning into 'master'... remote: Enumerating objects: 2557, done. remote: Counting objects: 100% (2557/2557), done. remote: Compressing objects: 100% (102/102), done. Receiving objects: 100% (3562454/3562454), 1.27 GiB | 6.92 MiB/s, done.

Hello all, I'm new to the llvm community. I'm learning how things work. I noticed that there has been some interest in improving how unions are handled. Bug 21725 is one example. I figured it might be a interesting place to start. I discussed this with a couple people, and below is a suggestion on how to represent unions. I would like some comments on how this fits in with how