search for: c11

...gt; > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:02 PM Siva Chandra <sivachandra at google.com> wrote: > > >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:32 AM Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: > > >>>> llvm-libc is an implementation of the C standard library targeting C11 > > >>>> and above. > > >>> Any particular reason for C11 as opposed to C17? > > >> Two reasons: > > >> 1. The C++17 standard refers to the C11 standard. > > > This is somewhat confusing to me. That's a reason to support *at >...

...Ballman via llvm-dev wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:02 PM Siva Chandra <sivachandra at google.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:32 AM Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: >>>> llvm-libc is an implementation of the C standard library targeting C11 >>>> and above. >>> Any particular reason for C11 as opposed to C17? >> Two reasons: >> 1. The C++17 standard refers to the C11 standard. > This is somewhat confusing to me. That's a reason to support *at > least* C11. It doesn't seem like a reason to...

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 8:32 AM Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: > > llvm-libc is an implementation of the C standard library targeting C11 > > and above. > > Any particular reason for C11 as opposed to C17? Two reasons: 1. The C++17 standard refers to the C11 standard. 2. C11 is sufficiently modern while not closing doors for users requiring compliance with an "older" standards. That said, we could choose not to...

Hi, TL;DR: should we add a new memory ordering to fences? ``fence seq_cst`` is currently use to represent two things: - GCC-style builtin ``__sync_synchronize()`` [0][1]. - C11/C++11's sequentially-consistent thread fence ``std::atomic_thread_fence(std::memory_order_seq_cst)`` [2]. As far as I understand: - The former orders all memory and emits an actual fence instruction. - The latter only provides a total order with other sequentially-consistent loads and stores...

I have started working on an implementation of atomic_ref. Implementing this requires performing atomic operations on arbitrary references. The behavior is undefined if a reference is provided that is not aligned per the public export required_alignment. What assumptions do the __c11_atomic builtins make about destination argument alignment, format, size etc.? Is it required that the destination argument be annotated as _Atomic like the corresponding standard c11 functions require? The following code in libcxx/include/config implies that the c11 atomic builtins should be subst...

2013/7/31 JF Bastien <jfb at google.com>: > Hi, > > TL;DR: should we add a new memory ordering to fences? > > > ``fence seq_cst`` is currently use to represent two things: > - GCC-style builtin ``__sync_synchronize()`` [0][1]. > - C11/C++11's sequentially-consistent thread fence > ``std::atomic_thread_fence(std::memory_order_seq_cst)`` [2]. > > As far as I understand: > - The former orders all memory and emits an actual fence instruction. > > - The latter only provides a total order with other > sequen...

...ect way to specify a C standard in a package's Makevars file? Building a package with e.g. PKG_CFLAGS = -std=gnu11 does work but R CMD check issues a warning: * checking compilation flags in Makevars ... WARNING Non-portable flags in variable 'PKG_CFLAGS': -std=gnu11 (Same for -std=c11.) Thanks! Regards, Andreas Kersting

...ehavior be off by default, and opted into by C++ frontends makes sense. > 3. Bonus: it makes choosing an attribute name easier: mustprogress, done. > >> I've also modified the clang patch [0] to only apply either of the >> >> attributes for C functions when compiled with C11 or later so we can >> tightly adhere to both the C and C++ standards, and the other changes >> that need to be made will be forthcoming. Thanks again to James, that >> particular example was pretty cool, and I agree that it may be best to >> follow that interpretation. >&...

HI, Using c11<- 0.01 c12<- 0.01 c1<- 0.10 c2<- 0.10 One possible problem is that: dim(res5) #[1] 513? 20 res6<-aggregate(.~m1+n1+m+n,data=res5[,c(1:6,9:12,21:24)] ,max) #Error in `[.data.frame`(res5, , c(1:6, 9:12, 21:24)) : ?# undefined columns selected A.K. _____________________________...

...> 2013/7/31 JF Bastien <jfb at google.com>: >> Hi, >> >> TL;DR: should we add a new memory ordering to fences? >> >> >> ``fence seq_cst`` is currently use to represent two things: >> - GCC-style builtin ``__sync_synchronize()`` [0][1]. >> - C11/C++11's sequentially-consistent thread fence >> ``std::atomic_thread_fence(std::memory_order_seq_cst)`` [2]. >> >> As far as I understand: >> - The former orders all memory and emits an actual fence instruction. >> >> - The latter only provides a total orde...

....4 compiler. Looks like BerVarray is totallly missing from Solaris ldap. BR, Tomppa Making all in lib-ldap source='ldap-client.c' object='ldap-client.lo' libtool=yes \ DEPDIR=.deps depmode=none /bin/bash ../../depcomp \ /bin/bash ../../libtool --tag=CC --mode=compile cc -std=c11 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../.. -I../../src/lib -I../../src/lib-test -I../../src/lib-settings -I../../src/lib-master -I../../src/lib-ssl-iostream -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/sfw/include -xO4 -xtarget=ultra4 -xcache=64/32/4:8192/128/2 -I/usr/local/include -c -o ldap-client.lo ldap-client.c li...

...B4SO 0 9 B B4 B4SW 0 9 B B7 B7NO 0 5 B B7 B7NW 0 7 B B7 B7SO 0 4 B B7 B7SW 0 2 B B8 B8NO 0 8 B B8 B8NW 0 4 B B8 B8SW 0 8 B B9 B9NO 0 5 B B9 B9NW 0 8 B B9 B9SO 0 5 B B9 B9SW 0 3 C C1 C1NO 0 7 C C1 C1NW 0 6 C C1 C1SO 0 7 C C1 C1SW 0 8 C C10 C10NO 0 6 C C10 C10NW 0 7 C C10 C10SO 0 5 C C10 C10SW 0 6 C C11 C11NO 0 10 C C11 C11NW 0 10 C C11 C11SO 0 15 C C11 C11SW 0 10 C C15 C15NO 0 11 C C15 C15NW 0 5 C C15 C15SO 0 10 C C15 C15SW 0 6 C C17 C17NW 0 7 C C17 C17SO 0 7 C C17 C17SW 0 10 C C18 C18NO 0 7 C C18 C18NW 0 11 C C18 C18SO 0 6 C C18 C18SW 0 4 C C19 C19NO 0 4 C C19 C19SW 0 6 C C2 C2NO 0 5 C C2 C2NW 0...

...b at google.com>: >>> Hi, >>> >>> TL;DR: should we add a new memory ordering to fences? >>> >>> >>> ``fence seq_cst`` is currently use to represent two things: >>> - GCC-style builtin ``__sync_synchronize()`` [0][1]. >>> - C11/C++11's sequentially-consistent thread fence >>> ``std::atomic_thread_fence(std::memory_order_seq_cst)`` [2]. >>> >>> As far as I understand: >>> - The former orders all memory and emits an actual fence instruction. >>> >>> - The latter on...

...ility) since we've made substantial progress in clarifying the exact definitions of progress in this context and I think it's a good idea to bake it into the attribute name. I've also modified the clang patch [0] to only apply either of the attributes for C functions when compiled with C11 or later so we can tightly adhere to both the C and C++ standards, and the other changes that need to be made will be forthcoming. Thanks again to James, that particular example was pretty cool, and I agree that it may be best to follow that interpretation. [0] https://reviews.llvm.org/D86841 &gt...

I've come across this issue before and came to the following conclusion: - We are not obligated to support objects that large, C11 5.2.4.1/1 only requires that we support objects of size 65535! Their guidance for maximum object size is stated to be half of SIZE_MAX in C11 K.3.4/4 which is typically equivalent to PTRDIFF_MAX. - The expectation that PTRDIFF_MAX is more or less a proxy for the largest object size is not uncommon...

It could be that 32-bit systems are disappearing so rapidly that nobody cares too much about this issue, but this blog post is still worth reading: http://trust-in-soft.com/objects-larger-than-ptrdiff_max-bytes/ John

...i(int a){ return 23; } int flop(int a, char ** c){ a += 71; int b = 0; if (a == 56){ b = 69; b += ci(a); } puts("ok"); return a + b; } -------------------------------------- Compiled that way (using the versions I downloaded and eventually compiled) : clang_custom -std=c11 -O3 -march=native -c app2.c -S against gcc: gcc_custom -std=c11 -O3 -march=native -c app2.c -S Versions (latest for each, downloaded just a few days ago): gcc : 5.1 clang/llvm: clang+llvm-3.6.1-x86_64-apple-darwin Host: osx yosemite. The assembly (cut to the essential): LLVM: pushq %rbp movq...

...se my own recent svn tree) > > $ clang -arch arm -emit-llvm -S -O0 example.c -o arm.bc > $ opt -print-after-all -O1 arm.bc > > I can see where the branch test is whittled down to an 'if true' and then eliminated, but cannot comment as to why this might be. > From reading C11, I can posit a potential spec explanation: Start with x--. Per C11: If both the pointer operand and the result point to elements of the same array object, or one past the last element of the array object, the evaluation shall not produce an overflow; otherwise, the behavior is undefined. The o...

I have a data.frame object like: > data.frame(x=c('A','A','B','B'), y=c('Ab','Ac','Ba','Bd')) x y 1 A Ab 2 A Ac 3 B Ba 4 B Bd how could I create a tree structure object like this: |---Ab A---| _| |---Ac | | |---Ba B---| |---Bb Thanks, Zech [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

...ng a package with e.g. PKG_CFLAGS = -std=gnu11 does work but R CMD check issues a warning: for some unstated value of 'work' ... > * checking compilation flags in Makevars ... WARNING > Non-portable flags in variable 'PKG_CFLAGS': > -std=gnu11 > > (Same for -std=c11.) > > Thanks! Regards, > Andreas Kersting Those flags are not portable, as 'check' correctly says. Furthermore, on some platforms there may be no flag which can be added -- R documents that 'CC' specifies a C99 compiler, and that or CC+CFLAGS are likely to specify fla...