search for: attribution

On Nov 13, 2012, at 12:20 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > IR Changes > ---------- > > The attributes will be specified within the IR. This allows us to generate code > that the user wants. This also has the advantage that it will no longer be > necessary to specify all of the command line options when compiling the bit code > (via 'llc' or 'clang'). E.g.,

Hi! This is a proposal to expand the Attributes class to support many different options that will be accessible by all parts of the compiler. Please read and give any feedback you may have. Thanks! -bw Passing Options to Different Parts of the Compiler Problem ======= There is a growing need to pass information from the front-end to different parts of the compiler, especially

Hi! The rewrite of the attributes class is well underway. The next step is to add support for the expanded rôle of attributes in the language and IR. This is the final proposal for the language changes. There isn't a lot of new information except for the syntax changes for the new feature. Executive Summary: The new syntax is: #0 = attributes { noinline align=4

On Nov 20, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Meador Inge <meadori at codesourcery.com> wrote: > On Nov 13, 2012, at 12:20 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> IR Changes >> ---------- >> >> The attributes will be specified within the IR. This allows us to generate code >> that the user wants. This also has the advantage that it will no longer be >> necessary to specify

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Meador Inge <meadori at codesourcery.com> wrote: > > On Nov 13, 2012, at 12:20 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> IR Changes >> ---------- >> >> The attributes will be specified within the IR. This allows us to generate code >> that the user wants. This also has the advantage that it will no longer be >> necessary to

Dear all, Internally, the attribute list appears to be implemented as an generic list vector with a names attributes (i.e., the attribute slot in the object's SEXPREC structure would point toward a VECTOR_SEXPREC representing a generic vector). > attributes(c(a=1)) $names [1] "a" > typeof(attributes(c(a=1))) [1] "list" From R, it appears as if the named list had

Dear All! For descriptive purposes I would like to add attributes to objects. These attributes should be kept, even if by indexing only part of the object is used. I noted that some attributes like levels and class of a factor exist also after indexing, while others, like comment or label vanish. Is there a way to make an arbitrary attribute to be kept after indexing? This would be especially

Using the New Attributes Classes Attributes in LLVM have changed in some fundamental ways. It was necessary to do this to support expanding the attributes to encompass more than a handful of attributes --- e.g. command line options. The old way of handling attributes consisted of representing them as a bit mask of values. This bit mask was stored in a "list" structure that was reference

In some places when generating XML output in C code we use some clever macros: start_element ("memory") { attribute ("unit", "MiB"); string ("%d", g->memsize); } end_element (); This commit which is mostly refactoring moves the repeated definitions of these macros into a common header file. I also took this opportunity to change / clean up

I am trying to encode arbitrary S3 objects by recursively looping over the object and all its attributes. However, there is an unfortunate feature of the attributes() function that is causing trouble. From the manual for ?attributes: The names of a pairlist are not stored as attributes, but are reported as if they were (and can be set by the replacement method for attributes). Now because of

On Jan 29, 2013, at 2:42 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Executive Summary: > > The new syntax is: > > #0 = attributes { noinline align=4 "cpu"="cortex-a8" } > #1 = attributes { attr = (val1 val2 val3) } > #bork = attributes { sspreq noredzone } > > define void @foo() #0 #bork { ret void } The general syntax LGTM. It

I am trying to run the ereader bookstore software from Sony/Borders. It installed without any errors, but I get this error when I try to run the program: err:module:load_builtin_dll failed to load .so lib for builtin L"winemp3.acm": libmpg123.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Google did not return any useful results. I am running Debian squeeze: Linux

Hi all, I have 2 models with a standard 1 to many relationship. I''m also using REST on the two models and have added the appropriate code to the routes.rb file. scorecard.rb: class Scorecard < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :attributes end attribute.rb: class Attribute < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :scorecard end routes.rb: map.resources :scorecards do |scorecard|

As we encode more CodeGen and target-specific options in bitcode to support LTO, we risk crippling `llc` as a debugging tool. In particular, `llc` command-line options are generally ignored when a function has an attribute set explicitly, but the plan of record is for `clang` to explicitly encode all (or most) CodeGen options -- even the target defaults. Changing `clang` to store target defaults

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > > On 2015-Feb-24, at 13:25, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Duncan, > > > > Been thinking about this a bit and a few comments/questions. I may have > misunderstood some things in your mail though so please feel free to >

Hi Duncan, Been thinking about this a bit and a few comments/questions. I may have misunderstood some things in your mail though so please feel free to explain at me :) > Changing `clang` to store target defaults on the module will allow us to > continue to override them when running `llc`. The right precedence > would be: > > 1. Explicit attributes set on the function. >

Overhauling Attributes Problem ======= LTO needs a way to pass options through to different parts of the compiler. In particular, we need to pass code generation options to the back-end. The way we want to do this is via the LLVM Attributes class. In order to do that, we need to overhaul the Attributes class. The Attributes class right now isn't very extensible. After considering several

I want to overload the = operator for one of the attributes in a model to run a filter on the input. However I can''t do this: def attribute=(data) self.attribute = filter(data) end because that creates an infinite recursive loop. How do I get around this? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

This is kind of a two part question. Question One: I want to be sure that an Order model is protecting sensitive attributes from mass assignment. The example looks like this: describe Order do it "should protect total attribute from mass assignment" do @order = Order.new(:total => 0.05) @order.total.should_not == 0.05 end end And the code to implement it: class Order

Hi, I have questions about object attributes, and how they are handled when subsetted. My examples will use: tm <- (1:10)/10 ds <- (1:10)^2 attr(tm,"units") <- "sec" attr(ds,"units") <- "cm" dat <- data.frame(tm=tm,ds=ds) attr(dat,"id") <- "test1" When a "primitive class" object (numeric, character, etc.) is