search for: _length

I'm hitting a strange pointer aliasing "bug". Here is a test case : /* SOURCE CODE */ #define little_list_size 8 class LittleList1 { public: int _length; double _data[ little_list_size ]; LittleList1( int length ) { _length = length; for( int i=0; i<length; i++ ) _data[i] = 0; } }; class LittleList2 { public: int _length; double _data[ little_list_size ]; LittleList2( int length ) { _length = length; for( int i=0; i<_len...

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Pierre C <lists at peufeu.com> wrote: > > I'm hitting a strange pointer aliasing "bug". Here is a test case : > > /* SOURCE CODE */ > > #define little_list_size 8 > > class LittleList1 { > public: >        int     _length; >        double  _data[ little_list_size ]; > >        LittleList1( int length ) >        { >                _length = length; >                for( int i=0; i<length; i++ ) >                        _data[i] = 0; >        } > }; > > class LittleList2 { > publ...

On Jun 27, 2010, at 2:26 PM, Eugene Toder wrote: > Hi Dan, > > Are you referring to my reasoning for why _length and _data[i] do not > alias? No, I was referring to the discussion of C99 6.7.2.1, 6.5.6, 6.2.6, and so on. > I don't think this needs TBAA or any "strict" aliasing rules. > All that sufficient is 1) assumption about struct layout: > offsetof(_length) < offsetof(_data...

Hi Dan, Are you referring to my reasoning for why _length and _data[i] do not alias? I don't think this needs TBAA or any "strict" aliasing rules. All that sufficient is 1) assumption about struct layout: offsetof(_length) < offsetof(_data) 2) assumption that i >= 0. My understanding is that 1) is guaranteed by llvm rules and 2) by C r...

...ny hints -- offsetof macro, which > would have no use otherwise; 6.2.6/4, which allows to copy any object > into array of chars; aliasing rules of 6.5, which allow accessing any > object through char*. > > On the original subject -- in this example, isn't it guaranteed that > _length and _data[i] do not alias? i is non-negative (if it's unsigned > -- by definition, if it's signed -- because signed overflow is > undefined behaviour), so &_data[i] >= &_data > &_length. > > Eugene > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:58 PM, John McCall <rj...

...;t contain objects large enough). Can this be used for alias analysis? Eugene On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 27, 2010, at 2:26 PM, Eugene Toder wrote: > >> Hi Dan, >> >> Are you referring to my reasoning for why _length and _data[i] do not >> alias? > > No, I was referring to the discussion of C99 6.7.2.1, 6.5.6, > 6.2.6, and so on. > >> I don't think this needs TBAA or any "strict" aliasing rules. >> All that sufficient is 1) assumption about struct layout: >> off...

...1 and 3, however there are many hints -- offsetof macro, which would have no use otherwise; 6.2.6/4, which allows to copy any object into array of chars; aliasing rules of 6.5, which allow accessing any object through char*. On the original subject -- in this example, isn't it guaranteed that _length and _data[i] do not alias? i is non-negative (if it's unsigned -- by definition, if it's signed -- because signed overflow is undefined behaviour), so &_data[i] >= &_data > &_length. Eugene On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:58 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:...

On Jun 17, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 06/17/2010 06:19 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Pierre C <lists at peufeu.com> wrote: >>>>> There are essentially two ways to "solve" this issue: one is

Hi, Can anyone tel me how to plot two boxplot at the same abscisse value ? Because I want to compare the discrimination of two different biological methods of the same data. Thanks Christine -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or

...ile a project, similar to my other projects I've been calling from R, I get the following linker errors: Linking... main.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _Rf_unprotect main.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _REAL main.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _LENGTH main.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _Rf_warning main.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _Rf_protect main.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _Rf_coerceVector Debug/rdll_test.dll : fatal error LNK1120: 6 unresolved externals Error executing link.exe. rdll_t...

...error messages: Compiling... out.c Linking... out.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _Rf_unprotect out.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _Rf_protect out.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _Rf_allocMatrix out.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _Rf_length I see, for example, that PROTECT(s) is #defined as protect(s) in R.h, #ifndef R_NO_REMAP. If I do nothing, I get the errors above, and if I #idefine R_NO_REMAP, I get the following errors, instead: Compiling... out.c Linking... out.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol _unprotect out.ob...

Hi all, I'm planning to migrate my courier-imap imap server to dovecot, but I'm experiencing a strange issue with fts-lucene plugin. Basically, every time I start a search, the log starts to write: Apr 05 19:30:53 indexer: Error: Indexer worker disconnected, discarding 1 requests for XXXXXX Apr 05 19:30:53 indexer-worker(XXXXX): Fatal: master: service(indexer-worker): child 809 killed