search for: _values_

Hi, I have searched the documentations of eval, substitute, expression, and I cannot make work something like the values of a list of variable names: lis <- ls(pattern="pr") # all variables with names containing 'pr' What is the mantra giving me the _values_ of the variables whose names are contained in 'lis'. eval(parse(ls(pattern="pr"))) will not do but returning TRUE. TIA C. -- Christian Hoffmann Rigiblickstrasse 15b CH-8915 Hausen am Albis Switzerland Telefon +41-(0)44-7640853

Hi! in the detailed description of llvm::Value it says: All _types_ can have a name and they should belong to some Module Is this correct or is it rather All _values_ can have a name and they should belong to some Module? Is it correct to use types across modules (in the same context)? -Jochen

...nction creates a data frame with enough columns to hold the greatest number of values for each ID variable. Notice that the SITE_n columns contain three values for id_X (A, A, B) and two for id_Y (A, B, NA) as there was no third occasion of measurement for the latter. Even though there are only two _values_ for SITE, there must be enough space for three. In your desired output, SITE for the second occasion of measurement is wrong (it should be "A"), and for the third occasion it is unknown. Even if there was only one value for SITE in the original data frame, it should be repeated for the co...

...a frame with enough columns to hold > the greatest number of values for each ID variable. Notice that the > SITE_n columns contain three values for id_X (A, A, B) and two for > id_Y (A, B, NA) as there was no third occasion of measurement for the > latter. Even though there are only two _values_ for SITE, there must > be enough space for three. In your desired output, SITE for the second > occasion of measurement is wrong (it should be "A"), and for the third > occasion it is unknown. Even if there was only one value for SITE in > the original data frame, it should be...

Hi, I'm trying to add function calls in the LLVM IR using the IRBuilder class. I've read both tutorials about functions but I still get assertion errors. I allocate memory for all function arguments and pass them as explained in the tutorial. My code is (this function is supposed to add a call to f in bb at pos): void addCallSite(Function *f, BasicBlock *bb, BasicBlock::iterator pos)

[Please use Reply to All for sending your message to the ml too] Marc Claesen <claesenm at gmail.com> writes: >> Another issue is that I don't see in your code the _values_ you want to >> pass to the called function. Apparently you already have the function >> declaration (Function *f) but you are creating a call to that function, >> and you need the actual arguments (not the argument types): > > That's exactly the problem. I'm trying t...

...ift by a constant. *I think the current representation of nsw/nuw in SCEV expressions is not congruent with LLVM's specification of poison values, and that is blocking us from exploiting poison values as intended by LLVM's design.* # The proposed solution Since poison values are, well, _values_, I propose we model them as data within SCEV. We treat nsw/nuw flags as "operands" since they contribute to the result of an SCEV expression just like normal inputs to the expression. This means we'd treat "add %x, %y" as a different SCEV expression than "add nsw %x,...

Hi Jim, Thank you very much for your suggestions. I used it but it gave me three sites. But actually I do have only two sites "Id_X" and "Id_y" . In fact "A" is repeated two times for "Id_X". If it is repeated, I would like to take the first one among many repeated values. dat<-structure(list(ID = structure(c(1L, 1L, 1L, 2L, 2L), .Label =

...ugh columns to hold >> the greatest number of values for each ID variable. Notice that the >> SITE_n columns contain three values for id_X (A, A, B) and two for >> id_Y (A, B, NA) as there was no third occasion of measurement for the >> latter. Even though there are only two _values_ for SITE, there must >> be enough space for three. In your desired output, SITE for the second >> occasion of measurement is wrong (it should be "A"), and for the third >> occasion it is unknown. Even if there was only one value for SITE in >> the original data fra...

...nuw in SCEV expressions is not congruent with LLVM's specification of poison values, and that is blocking us from exploiting poison values as intended by LLVM's >> design.* >> >> >> >> # The proposed solution >> >> Since poison values are, well, _values_, I propose we model them as data within SCEV. We treat nsw/nuw flags as "operands" since they contribute to the result of an SCEV expression just like normal inputs to the expression. >> >> This means we'd treat "add %x, %y" as a different SCEV expression than...

If you want colors mapped to the _values_ in DF1$C, there are a number of ways to do it: Color_unq<-color.scale(DF1$C,c(1,0),c(0,0,c(0,1)) This will produce colors from the lowest values (red) through the highest (blue). See the help page for color.scale to get different colors. With this you can use color.legend to add a mapping of t...

...ift by a constant. *I think the current representation of nsw/nuw in SCEV expressions is not congruent with LLVM's specification of poison values, and that is blocking us from exploiting poison values as intended by LLVM's design.* # The proposed solution Since poison values are, well, _values_, I propose we model them as data within SCEV. We treat nsw/nuw flags as "operands" since they contribute to the result of an SCEV expression just like normal inputs to the expression. This means we'd treat "add %x, %y" as a different SCEV expression than "add nsw %x,...

Hi debuginfo cabal, tl;dr: I'd like to know what people think about an alternative to DBG_VALUE instructions describing variable locations in registers, virtual or real. Before instruction selection in LLVM-IR we identify the _values_ of variables [0] by the instruction that computes the value; I believe we should be able to do the same post-isel, and it would avoid having to analyse register locations across regalloc and numerous optimisations. Or written another way: why don't we track the value of variables through backen...

...' does not hold because at line 2 the instruction might actually wrap around. Up till now I had not realised that sharing of SCEV expressions was the only reason for SCEV to have this different semantics. > >> # The proposed solution >> >> Since poison values are, well, _values_, I propose we model them as >> data within SCEV. We treat nsw/nuw flags as "operands" since they >> contribute to the result of an SCEV expression just like normal inputs >> to the expression. >> >> This means we'd treat "add %x, %y" as a diff...