search for: conventional

Hi, This is the first time I've posted, and I apologize if I formulate this incorrectly. I am analyzing data from a multi-region carrot variety trial. 35 varieties of carrots were grown in 3 randomized complete blocks in organic and conventional fields in Wisconsin, Indiana, Washington, and California. In this example I am comparing the heights of the carrot tops at harvest. In other words, I have 3 fixed effects: Region, System, VarName, one random effect: Rep, and one response variable: TopHeightHarvestAve. Some plots are missing data...

From: Justin Holewinski [mailto:justin.holewinski at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 10:50 AM To: Villmow, Micah Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Changes to the PTX calling conventions On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com<mailto:Micah.Villmow at amd.com>> wrote: From: Justin Holewinski [mailto:justin.holewinski

A concrete example: We''re building a system to organize the information about workshops being held in various conventions. A convention has more than one workshop, and each workshop can be held in more than one convention. Also each workshop has a host, who is specific to a workshop being held in a specific convention. For example, Matz may host an "Introduction to Ruby"

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com>wrote: > ** ** > > *From:* Justin Holewinski [mailto:justin.holewinski at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 13, 2011 10:50 AM > > *To:* Villmow, Micah > *Cc:* LLVM Developers Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: [LLVMdev] Changes to the PTX calling conventions**** > > ** ** > > On

Hi, all. Swift uses a non-standard calling convention on its supported platforms. Implementing this calling convention requires support from LLVM and (to a lesser degree) Clang. If necessary, we’re willing to keep that support in “private” branches of LLVM and Clang, but we feel it would be better to introduce it in trunk, both to (1) minimize the differences between our branches and trunk and

From: Justin Holewinski [mailto:justin.holewinski at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 9:48 AM To: Villmow, Micah Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Changes to the PTX calling conventions On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com<mailto:Micah.Villmow at amd.com>> wrote: Currently, PTX has its own calling conventions where

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com>wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Justin Holewinski [mailto:justin.holewinski at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 13, 2011 9:48 AM > *To:* Villmow, Micah > *Cc:* LLVM Developers Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: [LLVMdev] Changes to the PTX calling conventions**** > > ** ** >

Hi llvm-dev, Every now and then, when building a direct ``CallInst`` either from IRBuilder or through ``Create*``, I have a latent bug because the calling convention (CC) expected by the function is not set on the call, and I need to manually call ``setCallingConv``. Now, from LangRef#calling-conventions, The calling convention of any pair of dynamic caller/callee must match, or the

Currently, PTX has its own calling conventions where they are split into kernel/device. The AMDIL backend requires very similar calling conventions and I was wondering if we could change the calling conventions from PTX_* to something more generic? Maybe just Kernel/Device? Or would it be preferable to add a new calling convention that is unique for each target, even though it duplicates

Hi Duncan, On 10/14/11 03:56 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Karel, > >> > const unsigned* >> > ARMBaseRegisterInfo::getCalleeSavedRegs(const MachineFunction *MF) >> const { >> > + bool ghcCall = false; >> > + >> > + if (MF) { >> > + const Function *F = MF->getFunction(); >> > + ghcCall = (F ? F->getCallingConv() ==

Hi Duncan, Karel, On 14 October 2011 08:22, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Karel, > >>>> > const unsigned* >>>> > ARMBaseRegisterInfo::getCalleeSavedRegs(const MachineFunction *MF) >>>> const { >>>> > + bool ghcCall = false; >>>> > + >>>> > + if (MF) { >>>> > + const

I’d like to discuss revising the LLVM coding conventions to change the naming of variables to start with a lowercase letter. This should not be a discussion on the pain of such a transition, or how to get from here to there, but rather, if there is a better place to be. My arguments for the change are: 1. No other popular C++ coding style uses capitalized variable names. For instance here

Hi Karel, >>> > const unsigned* >>> > ARMBaseRegisterInfo::getCalleeSavedRegs(const MachineFunction *MF) >>> const { >>> > + bool ghcCall = false; >>> > + >>> > + if (MF) { >>> > + const Function *F = MF->getFunction(); >>> > + ghcCall = (F ? F->getCallingConv() == CallingConv::GHC : false);

On 08/10/2013 02:47 PM, Micah Villmow wrote: > Michele, > The information you are trying to gather is fundamentally static information, and as such can be implicit. It doesn't matter what OpenCL program you are trying to compile, the address space information for each backend doesn't change. > > So there are multiple ways to do this without requiring a new interface into LLVM

Hi Let''s say we have model Foo. Each Foo instance can have several bars. Those bars are primitive, so they shouldn''t be models. For example, Foo might be a type of convention, and the bars might be years the convention was held in. Naively, we would have a conventions_years date, and put: has_many :years inside class Convention. But then we''d get an error, since for

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > Sure, I actually have no problem with this. > > I'm going to point out that one of the naming conventions used by LLD has > serious problems: naming variables with a leading underscore puts them > *way* too close to the reserved identifier space. Folks have accidentally > ended up with

Hi @ll, I would like to obsolete and completely remove the WebKit Calling Convention. The CC was originally added for FTL and there are no other users I am aware off. Since WebKit moved away from LLVM a while ago I don’t see the need to keep the dead code around anymore. Please let me know if anyone happens to use this calling convention or has any objection with removing it. Thanks Cheers,

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com>wrote: > Currently, PTX has its own calling conventions where they are split into > kernel/device. **** > > The AMDIL backend requires very similar calling conventions and I was > wondering if **** > > we could change the calling conventions from PTX_* to something more > generic?**** >

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2013, at 1:55 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > We're looking more at doing some serious hacking on LLD, and I'd like to > avoid doing lots of work in the codebase only to change the style around > later. > > > > My understanding was that LLD was always intended to

Hi All, TLDR: Allow calling conventions to be defined on-the-fly for functions in LLVM-IR, comments are requested on the mechanism and syntax. Summary ======= This is a proposal for adding a mechanism by which LLVM can be used to generate code fragments adhering to an arbitrary calling convention. Intended use cases are: generating code intended to be called from the shadow of a stackmap or