search for: c0x

The relevant sections of the C standard are http://c0x.coding-guidelines.com/5.2.4.2.1.html, which specifies that C ints are only guaranteed to be 16 bits, C long ints at least 32 bits in size, as Peter mentioned. Also http://c0x.coding-guidelines.com/6.4.4.1.html specifies l or L as the suffix for a long int constants. However R does define integers...

...cros) is how to make an assert generate syntax errors when it is provably violated even in release mode. This gets even better if you control the intermediate format and can store the flow-of-control syntax error conditions with the bytecode representation of the function. (Am I misreading C99/C0X/C++98/C++0x: does the exact specification of the expansion of assert in release mode prohibit slipping in a _Pragma or other implementation-extension constructs to inject flow of control constraints?) That is, instead of hoping for an extern "C" function so that a debug wrapper could...

On 16/06/2017 20:37, Jim Hester wrote: > The relevant sections of the C standard are > http://c0x.coding-guidelines.com/5.2.4.2.1.html, which specifies that C There is more than one C standard, but that is none of them. > ints are only guaranteed to be 16 bits, C long ints at least 32 bits in > size, as Peter mentioned. Also http://c0x.coding-guidelines.com/6.4.4.1.html > specifies l...

Wikipedia claims that C ints are still only guaranteed to be at least 16 bits, and longs are at least 32 bits. So no, R's integers are long. -pd > On 16 Jun 2017, at 20:20 , William Dunlap via R-devel <r-devel at r-project.org> wrote: > > But R "integers" are C "ints", as opposed to S "integers", which are C > "long ints". (I

...via > macros) is how to make an assert generate syntax errors when it is > provably violated even in release mode. I like this idea. Sounds good. One can imagine enrolling static analysis and automated theorem provers to help out on the harder problems. :-) > (Am I misreading C99/C0X/C++98/C++0x: does the exact specification of > the expansion of assert in release mode prohibit slipping in a _Pragma > or other implementation-extension constructs to inject flow of control > constraints?) Technically, yes, but we can reword future standards to have the latitude to giv...

On Oct 22, 2008, at 3:28 PM, Paul Biggar wrote: > As part of our PHP compiler (phpcompiler.org), it would be great to be > able to annotate our generated C code with, for example, (var != > NULL), or (var->type == STRING), and have that information passed > around (esp interprocedurally at link-time) by the LLVM optimizers. For some odd reason I was thinking this was going to be

Hi, I'm interested in whether or not there is a way of providing source-level annotations to help LLVM with optimizations, similar to VisualC++'s __assume facility (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1b3fsfxw.aspx). As part of our PHP compiler (phpcompiler.org), it would be great to be able to annotate our generated C code with, for example, (var != NULL), or (var->type ==

...(P(#`@-3<V(#<R,"(-"BI);6%G96%B M;&5!<F5A($,R1%\X+C5X,3$O."XU>#$Q.@D)"2(P(#`@-C$R(#<Y,B(-"BI) M;6%G96%B;&5!<F5A($,R1%\X+C5X,3%3148O."XU>#$Q(%-%1CH)"0DB,"`P M(#8Q,B`W.3(B#0HJ26UA9V5A8FQE07)E82!#,D1?.7@Q,2\Y>#$Q.@D)"2(P M(#`@-C0X(#<Y,B(-"BI);6%G96%B;&5!<F5A($,R1%\Y>#$Q4T5&+SEX,3$@ M4T5&.@D)"2(P(#`@-C0X(#<Y,B(-"BI);6%G96%B;&5!<F5A($,R1%\X+C5X M,3,O."XU>#$S(%-%1CH)"0DB,"`P(#8Q,B`Y,S8B#0HJ26UA9V5A8FQE07)E M82!#,D1?."XU>#$T+S@N-7@Q-"!3148Z"0D)(C`@...