similar to: predict assistance

Is there any way to get it to delay this optimization where it goes from this: Initial selection DAG: BB#0 'bclr64:entry' SelectionDAG has 14 nodes: t0: ch = EntryToken t2: i64,ch = CopyFromReg t0, Register:i64 %vreg0 t4: i64,ch = CopyFromReg t0, Register:i64 %vreg1 t6: i64 = sub t4, Constant:i64<1> t7: i64 = shl Constant:i64<1>, t6

Setting the ISD::ROTL to Expand doesn't work? (via SetOperation) You could also do a Custom hook if that's what you're looking for. On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Phil Tomson <phil.a.tomson at gmail.com> wrote: > ... or perhaps to rephrase: > > In 3.9 it seems to be doing a smaller combine much sooner, whereas in 3.6 > it deferred that till later in the

One option may be to prevent the formation of ROTL, if possible, and then generating rol by hand. Marking it as "expand" would likely stop the DAG combiner from creating it. Then you could "preprocess" the selection DAG before the instruction selection and do the pattern matching yourself. -Krzysztof On 11/3/2016 4:24 PM, Phil Tomson via llvm-dev wrote: > I could try

We've recently moved our project from LLVM 3.6 to LLVM 3.9. I noticed one of our code generation tests is breaking in 3.9. The test is: ; RUN: llc < %s -march=xstg | FileCheck %s define i64 @bclr64(i64 %a, i64 %b) nounwind readnone { entry: ; CHECK: bclr r1, r0, r1, 64 %sub = sub i64 %b, 1 %shl = shl i64 1, %sub %xor = xor i64 %shl, -1 %and = and i64 %a, %xor ret i64

Question for 'experts' in LP using R (using the lpSolve package, say) -- which does not apply to me for the sort of problem I describe below. I've run any number of LP's using lpSolve in R, but all of them to date have objective and constraint functions that both contain the same variables. This lets you set up a LHS and RHS matrix/vector that are symmetrical. But, for a

Hello all. I wish to read a large data set into R. My current issue is in getting the data so that R would be able to access it. Using read.table won't work since the data is over 1GB in size (and I am using windows XP), so my plan was to read the file chunk by chunk and each time move it into bigmemory (I'll play with that when the time will come, maybe ff is better ?!). I encountered

Apart from the fact that the statement "such that t1+t2+t3+t4=2970 (as it must)" is not correct, the LP can be implemented as follows: library(lpSolve) LHS <- rbind( c(0,0,0,0, 1, 0, 0,0), c(1,0,0,0,-1, 1, 0,0), c(0,1,0,0, 0,-1, 1,0), c(0,0,1,0, 0, 0,-1,1), cbind(-diag(4),diag(4)), c(0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0), c(0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0), c(0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1) ) RHS <-

hello, does lustre support OSD T10 standard? Can it be used with IBM''s/Intel''s OSD initiator and target? Thanks, Ashish -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-discuss/attachments/20071128/c2de31a6/attachment-0002.html

Hi, I am having some issues with how some of the instructions are being legalized. So this is my intial basic block. The area of concern is the last three instructions. I will pick and choose debug output to keep this small. SelectionDAG has 36 nodes: t0: ch = EntryToken t6: i32,ch = CopyFromReg t0, Register:i32 %vreg507 t2: i32,ch = CopyFromReg t0, Register:i32 %vreg17

Hello, I am trying to complete a PCA on a set of standardized ring widths from 8 different sites (T10, T9, T8, T7, T6, T5, T3, and T2). The following is a small portion of my data: T10 T9 T8 T7 T6 T5 T3 T2 1.33738 0.92669 0.91146 0.98922 0.9308 0.88201 0.92287 0.91775 0.82181 1.05319 0.92908 0.97971 0.95165 0.98029 1.14048 0.77803 0.88294 0.96413 0.90893 0.87957 0.9961 0.74926 0.71394 0.70877

Hello, I am getting this error. What instruction is required to be implemented? LLVM ERROR: Cannot select: t22: v32i32 = vselect t724, t11, t16 t724: v32i32,ch = load<LD128[FixedStack1]> t723, FrameIndex:i64<1>, undef:i64 t659: i64 = FrameIndex<1> t10: i64 = undef t11: v32i32,ch = load<LD128[%sunkaddr45](align=4)(tbaa=<0x481f1e8>)> t0, t8, undef:i64

Hi, SystemZ supports @llvm.ctlz.i64() natively with a single instruction (FLOGR), and lesser bitwidth versions of the intrinsic are promoted to i64. For some reason, this leads to unfolded additions of constants as shown below: This function: define i16 @fun(i16 %arg) {   %1 = tail call i16 @llvm.ctlz.i16(i16 %arg, i1 false)   ret i16 %1 } ,gives this optimized DAG as input to instruction

Dear R-users, actually i try to parse some state protocols for my work. i an easy stetting the code below works fine, if states are reached only once. in harder settings it could be possible that one state gets visited more times. in this case for me its interesting to see how much waiting time lies between to states on the whole. by the way i didn't use R as a parsing tool so far, so

Dear all, Please suggest me how can I do it. I have a matrix which look like following: x1 x2 x3 t1 .01 0.3 0 t2 0 0.1 0.01 t3 0 .01 .01 t4 0 0 t5 5 0 0 t6 0 0 0 t7 0 0 0 t8 0 0 0 t9 0.6 0 0 t10 0 0 0.66 t11 0 0.6 0.11 t12 0 0.4 0 I want to sort decreasing order in each column based on rows. and then to display only those rows which has a value. The expected out put matrix will

Dear Group, My question relates to the write.table function. I have created a data.frame containing both "character" and "numeric" columns. When I use the write.table function to write this table into a text file spaces are added into the "numeric" columns so that the number of digits in each column is the same. This extra space is added before the actual number.

also i further run the following command; llc -debug filer-knl_o3.ll and its output is attached here. by looking at the output can we say that legalization runs fine and the error is due to instruction selection/ pattern matching which is not yet implemented? so do i need to worry and try to correct it at this stage or should i move forward to implement instruction selection/ pattern matching?

But isn't kinda silly that we transform to xor and then we transform it back. What is the advantage in doing so? Also, since we do that method, I now have to introduce setcc patterns for i1 values, instead of being able to just use logical pattern operators like not. -Dilan On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:00 AM Dilan Manatunga <manatunga at gmail.com> wrote: > For some reason I

Hi to all the people again, I was writting a simply function in R, and wish to collect the results in a excel file. The work goes as follows, Ciervos<-function(K1, K0, A, R,M,Pi,Hembras) {B<-(K1-K0)/A T1<-(R*Pi*Hembras-M*Pi+B)/(Pi-M*Pi+R*Pi*Hembras) P1<-Pi-B R1<-P1*Hembras*R M1<-P1*M T2<-(R1-M1+B)/(P1-M1+R1) P2<-P1-B R2<-P2*Hembras*R M2<-P2*M

Hello. After "Initial selection DAG" stage I get a DAG with node t14: ch = store<(store 4 into %ir.p45, align 8, addrspace 1)> t10, FrameIndex:i32<2>, FrameIndex:i32<3>, undef:i32 1. Where does it come from? Can I do anything to make it not appear? 2. If not, how do I change it so that the operand being stored would be first loaded into a register, and that register