similar to: Multiple comparisons: its a trap!

On 1 Oct 2010, at 13:35, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > >> Bill Wendling wrote: >>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>> >>>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>>> >>>>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. >>>>>

Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. I've defined comparison def NErrb : InstTCE<(outs I1Regs:$op3), (ins I32Regs:$op1,I32Regs:$op2), "", [(set I1Regs:$op3, (setne I32Regs:$op1, I32Regs:$op2))]>; But then I end up having the following bug: Code %0 = zext i8 %data to i32 %1 = zext i16 %crc to i32 %2 = xor i32 %1, %0 %3 = and i32 %2, 1 %4 =

On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: > Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. > > I've defined comparison > > > def NErrb : InstTCE<(outs I1Regs:$op3), (ins I32Regs:$op1,I32Regs:$op2), "", [(set I1Regs:$op3, (setne I32Regs:$op1, I32Regs:$op2))]>; > > > > > But then I end up having the following bug: > >

I'm trying to implement *MUL_LOHI for my processor. My processor has mulxss (e.g.) that gives the 32 high bits of a 64 bit multiply. I tried this in ios2ISelDAGToDAG.cpp: /// Mul/Div with two results case ISD::SMUL_LOHI: case ISD::UMUL_LOHI: { SDValue Op1 = Node->getOperand(0); SDValue Op2 = Node->getOperand(1); AddToISelQueue(Op1);

On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: > >> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. >> >> I've defined comparison >> >> def NErrb : InstTCE<(outs I1Regs:$op3), (ins I32Regs:$op1,I32Regs:$op2), "", [(set I1Regs:$op3, (setne I32Regs:$op1, I32Regs:$op2))]>;

The instruction mnemonics for the immediate forms of bit-test instructions including bt, btr and bts, btc do not work. llvm-mc barfs with: error: ambiguous instructions require an explicit suffix This is highly user-unfriendly, since we can easily infer what the user meant by inspecting $imm and translating the instruction appropriately. Do it exactly as the Intel manual describes. Note that

The langref says for the 'add' instruction: Syntax: <result> = add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ; yields {ty}:result <result> = nuw add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ; yields {ty}:result <result> = nsw add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ; yields {ty}:result <result> = nuw nsw add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ;

Peter Zotov писал 09.01.2013 19:59: > Hello. > > I've managed to create a bitcode file (attached; also available at > [1]) which produces > a series of identical errors when verified: > > | Global variable initializer type does not match global variable > type! > | %i.NilClass* @nil > > When ran through llvm-dis and recompiled, through, it verifies >

On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > Bill Wendling wrote: >> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: >> >>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>> >>>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. >>>> >>>> I've defined comparison >>>> >>>> def

Introduction: We would like to add new keyword to 'sdiv'\'udiv' instructions i.e. 'no-overflow'. This is the updated solution devised in the discussion: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118257.html The proposed keywords: "nof" stands for 'no-overflow' Syntax: <result> = sdiv nof <ty> <op1>,

hi, i'm new in R and i need some help. Please, ¿do you know a function how can process cross tables for many variables and show the result in one table who look like this?: +----------------------------------------------------+ |------------------ | X variable | |----------------- | Xop1 | Xop2 | Xop3|.....| +----------------------------------------------------+ |Yvar1 |

On 02/10/2018 06:00 AM, r-help-request at r-project.org wrote: > Did you check the gradient? I don't think so. It's zero, so of course > you end up where you start. > > Try > > data.input= data.frame(state1 = (1:500), state2 = (201:700) ) > err.th.scalar <- function(threshold, data){ > > state1 <- data$state1 > state2 <- data$state2 >

Bill Wendling wrote: > On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > >> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: >> >>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. >>> >>> I've defined comparison >>> >>> def NErrb : InstTCE<(outs I1Regs:$op3), (ins I32Regs:$op1,I32Regs:$op2), "", [(set

Please test if r115571 has fixed it. Evan On Oct 4, 2010, at 5:00 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > Bill Wendling wrote: >> On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: >> >>> Bill Wendling wrote: >>>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote:

Bill Wendling wrote: > On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > >> Bill Wendling wrote: >>> On Sep 29, 2010, at 12:36 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>> >>>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 06:25, Heikki Kultala wrote: >>>> >>>>> Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. >>>>> >>>>> I've

Dear list, I would like to do some calculation using different grouping variables. My 'df' looks like this: # Some data set.seed(345) id <- seq(200,400, by=10) ids <- sample(substr(id,1,1)) group1 <- rep(1:3, each=7) group2 <- rep(1:2, c(10,11)) group3 <- rep(1:4, c(5,5,5,6)) df <- data.frame(id, ids, group1, group2, group3) df <- rbind(df, df, df) df$time <-

Hello, I'm trying to fminimize the following problem: You have a data frame with 2 columns. data.input= data.frame(state1 = (1:500), state2 = (201:700) ) with data that partially overlap in terms of values. I want to minimize the assessment error of each state by using this function: err.th.scalar <- function(threshold, data){ state1 <- data$state1 state2 <- data$state2

I define a pattern to move two 32bits gpr to 64bits fpr. like arm instructure fmdrr. But I need to use an even/odd register pair to save its 2 operands. I define in mytarget.td: myfmdrr: SDTypeProfile<1, 2, [SDTCisVT<0, f64>, SDTCisVT<1, i32>,     SDTCisSameAs<1, 2>]>; def my_fmdrr : ........... def myFMDRR : ....                       (outs FPR: $result), ins(GPR:

. and yes, one more thing. On some architectures it might be desirable to know the _order_ of instructions in the packet. That is a bit trickier.. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum. From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Evan Cheng Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 2:40 PM To: LLVM Dev Subject: [LLVMdev]

Hi all, I have a question with the "getelemptr" instruction. E.g.: I have some GEP instructions in my program. Some look like: <INST_GEP op0=26 op1=64 op2=429/> . <INST_GEP op0=341 op1=64 op2=101 op3=499 op4=0/> The first instruction above in assembly file: %tmp60 = getelementptr [512 x i32]* @weights, i32 0, i32 %k.3.ph Ok, we see it all: Index of @weights in value