Bug in PTX ISA (carry propagation)?

fixed the issue. Will look into that further There is already an ongoing transaction which basically has its own version of the data. The newly added data is not visible to that transaction. Next to that you have hibernate in the mix, which uses caching and depending on what is executed, the query is only executed once and on subsequent calls it simply returns the cached values (within the same transaction/session for instance).
Links

Does that help The formula for S (P^C) is valid for P computed with XOR operation. As you probably know, the only difference in the truth tables between OR and XOR operation is when both bits are 1. That's why the formula for Sshould be slightly different if you use OR operation:

S = (P & (~G)) ^ C

fixed the issue. Will look into that further So I have the following VHDL code to implement an Nbit adder/subtractor using only a 2:1 mux, an inverter (flips bit), and a full adder. I am having issues connecting the carry out of an adder to the next ones carry in while having the first adder have a carry in of i_Control. Any help would be greatly appreciated :). , Make the carry array one longer:

signal carry : std_logic_vector(N downto 0); -- was N-1

     o_Couts => carry(i));

     o_Couts => carry(i+1));

I hope this helps you . The only data dependencies affecting an asm() statement are those that are explicitly expressed by the variable bindings. Note that you can bind register operands, but not the condition codes. Since in this code the result of __uaddo(a, b) is immediately being overwritten, the compiler determines that it does not contribute to the observable results, is therefore "dead code" and can be eliminated. This is easily checked by examining the generated machine code (SASS) for a release build with cuobjdump --dump-sass.
If we had slightly different code that does not allow the compiler to eliminate the code for __uaddo() outright, there would still be the issue that the compiler can schedule any instructions it likes between the code generated for __uaddo() and __uaddc(), and such instructions could destroy any setting of the carry flag due to __uaddo().