search for: 0'th

Dear People, I'm trying to write an R wrapper for a C++ library, using .Call. I've never used .Call before. I'm currently having some difficulties converting a R character string to a C one. Here is a little test program. #include <R.h> #include <Rinternals.h> #include <stdio.h> SEXP testfn(SEXP chstr) { char * charptr = CHAR(chstr); printf("%s",

...in LLLexer.cpp to recognize a local label and emit a "LocalLabelID" token, then adding an `else if` to the first `if` in LLParser::ParseBasicBlock, you could probably get a working solution too. However, this introduces an inconsistency in that now there's this pseudo-common syntax (%[0-9]+) for unnamed things for both BB's and instructions, but in the case of instructions, the % sigil is always needed, while the label syntax isn't sigilized by default, but permits this weird sigilized temporary numbered form. Maybe that slight inconsistency is worth it? If the inconsisten...

...thought I meant "should I modify the code to do this or that." I only meant to change the documentation. Please refer to the patch I've sent on LLVM-commits. That's about what I had in mind. I am fully aware that you cannot simply dive in and hack away on the handling of the %0 temporary. I wouldn't ever dream of doing that! -- Mikael 2013/11/27 Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> > (gah, this turned into a huge digression, sorry) > > The implicit numbering of BB's seems to be a pretty frequent issue for > people. Surprisingly, the issu...

The language reference states that local temporaries begin with index 0, but if I try that on my not-entirely-up-to-date v3.4 llc (it is like a week old), I get an error "instruction expected to be numbered '%1'". Also, quite a few examples in the LR uses %0 as a local identifier. Should I fix those or is it a problem in llc? -- Mikael -----------...

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Mikael Lyngvig <mikael at lyngvig.org> wrote: > Thanks for the lecture :) But I was not planning on changing a single > line in LLVM/Clang. I stick to the documentation until I've learned to > swim, perhaps even forever. Ah, now I see. You thought I meant &quot...

Without ANY intent of offending anybody, I simply don't like C++. I did code in it for some 12 years back from 1990 to 2002, but then I left it behind with a feeling of happiness. The main reason I am _trying_ to make a new language is that I hope to one day come up with something that can help retiring C++. I love C# but that language is yet too slow for many demanding problem domains. That being said, I don...

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Mikael Lyngvig <mikael at lyngvig.org> wrote: > Without ANY intent of offending anybody, I simply don't like C++. I did > code in it for some 12 years back from 1990 to 2002, but then I left it > behind with a feeling of happiness. The main reason I am _trying_...