search for: evaluat

...t after a “step in” to inline_me, the user wants to look at an expression > spelled *ptr even though the actual_obj might not have a memory address > (because fields are SROA’d into registers, or whatever). This is where > DW_OP_implicit_pointer saves the day; *ptr and ptr->x are still evaluatable > expressions, which expressions are secretly indirecting through the DIE for > actual_obj. > > > > I think it is not widely applicable outside of that kind of scenario. > Any ideas why it wouldn't be more general to handle cases where the variable isn't named? Suc...

...;gt= ; puppet/modules/ntp/manifests/init.pp:66). This works if I define<br>&gt; = the variable inside the node. Again, what am I doing wrong here? <br><br></div>There&#39;s an ordering issue when autoloading, and it&#39;s = somewhat<br>intractable -- Puppet evaluates all code outside of any class b= efore<br>it evaluates any other classes. &nbsp;This works fine when you use= <br> &#39;import&#39;, because all files are imported before any code is evaluat= ed.<br><br>However, when you use autoloading, some files are only imp...

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Curtis <mcurtis at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > Here's how I'm evaluating the expression (in my head): > > 00: Add(ZeroExtend(Truncate(Minus(AddRec(Start=0,Step=3)[n],3), i8), i32),3) > | > 01: Add(ZeroExtend(Truncate(Minus(AddRec(Start=0,Step=3)[0],3), i8), i32),3) >...

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 1:27 PM Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 14, 2019, at 1:21 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hey folks, > > > > Would you all mind having a bit of a design discussion around the > feature both at the DWARF level and the LLVM implementation? It seems like > what's

my understanding of `eval' behaviour is obviously incomplete. my question: usually `eval(expr)' and `eval(expr, envir=parent.frame())' should be identical. why does the last `eval' (yielding `r3') in this code _not_ evaluate in the local environment of function `f' but rather in the global environment (if `f' is called from there)? #---------------------------------------------------------- f <- function () { a <- 1 x <- 1 model <- y ~ a * x fitfunc <- deriv(model...

...%for.body> 10: calls getZeroExtendExpr({0,+,3}<%for.body>, i32); 11: returns (zext i8 {0,+,3}<%for.body> to i32) 12: returns (zext i8 {0,+,3}<%for.body> to i32) This expression is (I believe) correct for %conv2. The intent of the patch is to construct the correct (evaluatable) expression for %result.03 being fed into the computation of %conv2. Does that make more sense? Matthew C. On 12/18/2012 12:54 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Curtis <mcurtis at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> Here's how I'm evaluating the ex...

I''m trying to install weborb in my applications but it is not working as you can see: C:\RoR\mijnapplication>ruby script/plugin install http://themidnightcoders.net:8 089/svn/weborb --force to reinstall + ./README + ./Rakefile + ./init.rb + ./install.rb + ./lib/AC_OETags.js + ./lib/InfoService.rb + ./lib/data-management-config.xml + ./lib/example.html + ./lib/example.mxml +

...with an internal build of clang for hexagon (with -O2). The IR produced by the current clang trunk is not quite the same. >> Unfortunately, the 'and' on line 8 prevents Scalar Evolution from >> being able to create an expression for '%add' that it knows how to >> evaluate. >> >> The patch detects this pattern in createNodeForPHI and creates an >> equivalent expression that can be evaluated. >> >> Note that SCEV translates the 'and' into >> ZeroExtend(Truncate(%result.03, i8), i32) >> >> So in terms of SCEV...

...t after a “step in” to inline_me, the user wants to look at an expression > spelled *ptr even though the actual_obj might not have a memory address > (because fields are SROA’d into registers, or whatever). This is where > DW_OP_implicit_pointer saves the day; *ptr and ptr->x are still evaluatable > expressions, which expressions are secretly indirecting through the DIE for > actual_obj. > > > > I think it is not widely applicable outside of that kind of scenario. > > > > Any ideas why it wouldn't be more general to handle cases where the > variable i...

...tion is needed or not. I would like for that not to be the case, but that is a far bigger change. It also points out that an expression being a valid label definition or not can change in a way that is hard to see during the change itself: We can have an arbitrarily nested expression that goes from evaluatable to requiring a relocation when the section of a global object is changed. That in turn puts the validity check in the verifier, even we constraint ConstantExprs. In other words, another possible representation would be * GlobalsAlias point to ConstantExpr * The expression is completely uncons...

Bringing the discussion to llvmdev. For the purposed of this discussion, object files can be thought as having just a few thing we care about: data, labels and relocations. Data is what at llvm ir would be just the contents of variables or functions. Relocations are utilities to compute the data at link time when it is not possible to do so earlier. For example, to compute a pcrel relocation we