similar to: Scoping problem

I am resubmitting this to r-bugs, since Thomas Lumley indicates that it might be an error: On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Thomas Lumley wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, halvorsen wrote: > > > Hola! > > > > I have the following simple function: > > > > > testcar > > function(pow){ > > ob <- glm(Pound~CG+Age+Vage,data=car,weights=No, > >

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Friedman, Eli via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 1/12/2017 9:33 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote: >>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Antoine Pitrou via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:17 -0600 >>> Wei Ding via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

2007/11/22, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>: > > Hi, > > > Current llvm-gcc cannot emit llvm intrinsic function like llvm.pow.* and > > llvm.sin.* > > For example: > > > > double foo(double x, double y) { > > return pow(x,y); > > } > > > > will compiled into ll: > > > > define double @foo(double %x, double %y) {

Hi, > Current llvm-gcc cannot emit llvm intrinsic function like llvm.pow.* and > llvm.sin.* > For example: > > double foo(double x, double y) { > return pow(x,y); > } > > will compiled into ll: > > define double @foo(double %x, double %y) { > %tmp3 = tail call double @pow( double %x, double %y ) > ret double %tmp3 > } > > This is not

Hola! > rm(list=ls(all=TRUE)) > x <- 1:20 > y <- 1+x+rnorm(x) > xy.coords(y ~ x,NULL) ... expected output, correct, but when called from inside lowess: > lowess(y ~ x) Error in xy.coords(x, y) : x and y lengths differ > debug(xy.coords) > lowess(y ~ x) debugging in: xy.coords(x, y) ... long listing deleted if (is.language(x)) { if (inherits(x,

The transformation in LibCallSimplifier::replacePowWithSqrt with respect to -Inf uses a select instruction, which based on the observed behaviour, incorporates the side effects of the unchosen branch. This means that (for pow) a call to sqrt(-Inf) is materialized. Such a call is specified as having a domain error (C17 subclause 7.12.7.5) since the operand is less than zero. Contrast this with

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Antoine Pitrou via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:43:17 -0600 > Wei Ding via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I want an efficient way to implement function pow in LLVM instead of >> invoking pow() math built-in. For algorithm part, I am clear for the

Sorry - I misread your example and the problem. I see now where LibCallSimplifier creates the select...but we are immediately erasing that select with the code from the godbolt example. Does the real motivating case have no uses of the pow() result value? On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 1:03 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > Yes, I mean just bail out on the transform in >

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 12:45 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > Yes, that looks like a bug. The transform is ok in general for negative > numbers, but -Inf is a special-case for pow(), right? > If so, we probably need an extra check of the input with > "isKnownNeverInfinity()". > There is an extra check there already, but it uses

OK, I have made a little search about this "problem" that apparently occurs only on Windows platform... (but I am sure most of you are already aware of it): the slow down is due to the adoption of a different algorithm for pow in mingw 3.x. This is motivated by some other changes in mingw. Here is a quote of Danny Smith that did this change: >When mingw changed default FPU settings

Hi, Current llvm-gcc cannot emit llvm intrinsic function like llvm.pow.* and llvm.sin.* For example: double foo(double x, double y) { return pow(x,y); } will compiled into ll: define double @foo(double %x, double %y) { %tmp3 = tail call double @pow( double %x, double %y ) ret double %tmp3 } This is not consistent with llvm language reference. -------------- next part -------------- An

Hi everyone, I am trying to install colorspace (needed as part of my favourite ggplot2) on R v 2.7.0 running under ubuntu 7.04. The package is provided as source files and the compilation fails as below. I suspect this might be a problem with gcc v3/v4 incompatibility (or anything else), but I don't really know how to resolve it. Any advice will be appreciated - or perhaps somebody has got

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On Jan 12, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Steve (Numerics) Canon <scanon at apple.com <mailto:scanon at apple.com>> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Friedman, Eli via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>

Hi, It looks like SimplifyLibCalls has a tendency to emit calls to libm functions without checking with TLI whether these calls are available. For example, PowOpt has this code: struct PowOpt : public UnsafeFPLibCallOptimization { PowOpt(bool UnsafeFPShrink) : UnsafeFPLibCallOptimization(UnsafeFPShrink) {} virtual Value *callOptimizer(Function *Callee, CallInst *CI, IRBuilder<> &B)

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Kuperstein, Michael M < michael.m.kuperstein at intel.com> wrote: > Hi,**** > > ** ** > > It looks like SimplifyLibCalls has a tendency to emit calls to libm > functions without checking with TLI whether these calls are available.**** > > For example, PowOpt has this code:**** > > ** ** > > struct PowOpt : public

Hi, I am using llvm to generate jit code for numerical computation on window 7 64 platform. There is a function call, pow, in the jit code. The problem is that at run time, the pow function call sometimes links to msvcrt.dll, and sometimes to msvcr100.dll. These two calls from two dlls return different results, causing sporadic results. I tried to make the pow function either intrinsic or

Hi, I want an efficient way to implement function pow in LLVM instead of invoking pow() math built-in. For algorithm part, I am clear for the logic. But I am not quite sure for which parts of LLVM should I replace built-in pow with another efficient pow implementation. Any comments and feedback are appreciated. Thanks! -- Wei Ding -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

Hi there, I am trying to compare nonlinear least squares regression with AIC and anova. The simplest model is one nonlinear curve, and in the more complex model I have a categorical variable (producing parameter estimates for four curves). Both models run fine, but when I try to produce an AIC value for the second model I get the error: > AIC(pow.nls1) [1] 114408.3 > AIC(pow.nls2) Error in

hello everybody I use the following code for my programming & it runs with the error as specified below.Any help that would disolve the error will be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance my code looks like this #### R programme for simulating the power of the two sample t test vs various #### non-parametric alternatives sim.size <- 200 sample.size <- 10 set.seed(231) mu1 <- 0 delta

So for us we use SLEEF to actually implement the libcalls (LLVM intrinsics) that LLVM by default would generate - and since SLEEF has highly optimal 8-wide pow, optimized for AVX and AVX2, we really want to use that. So we would not see 4/8 libcalls and instead see 1 call to something that lights up the ymm registers. I guess the problem then is that the default expectation is that pow would be