search for: callling

Hello R is pretty new to me. I need to write a function that returns three matrices of different dimensions. In addition, I need to call a function from a contributed package with the function. I have browsed several manuals and docs but the examples on them are either very simple or extremely hard to follow. Many thanks Ed [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

Hi. On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 20:44:15 +0000, Sundar Nadathur wrote: > I am using RHEL 7.1 and libvirt 1.2.8. My intention is to intercept > the prepare and start hooks of libvirt during VM placement to > inject a virtio PCI device into the VM's domain xml. You are not supposed to talk to libvirtd from any hooks. > I placed a python script with execute permissions in >

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:43:21 +0000, Sundar Nadathur wrote: > Hello Jirka, > The script is not even invoked for prepare/start calls, not that it > is invoking libvirt APIs or is hanging. When it is invoked for > 'started', it runs to completion. Strange. Do you see corresponding "Calling hook" messages in libvirtd debug logs? (See

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 21:32:05 +0000, Sundar Nadathur wrote: > Hello, > Is there a reason why the prepare and start hooks cannot modify the > domain xml? Because they were not designed that way. It's already too late to change the domain definition in any of the hooks. > One would think it is a common use case to inject a device or some > content at VM creation

Anyone have any ideas as to why a call coming in won't ring the phone? I can call the phone from my cell and when I hear it ringing on the cell phone I pick up the house phone that should be ringing and am able to talk. I have tried two different pap2-na adapters, have verified the ports on my firewall and also a couple of different house phones. I am not running Asterisk yet but will be

Hi, I have an older phone with touch screen from Philips. It have it connected to Sipura 3000 FXS port and majority of features work ok. But phone also has touchscreen and web browser that I'd love to use for accessing my local web pages. But the phone only allows me to setup ISP phone number (username and password) and it wants to call it to get to Internet. Since it is connected to

That's useful to know that the static compilation code path works. Furthermore, as expected from that: 52: c7 05 04 00 00 00 d5 00 00 00 movl $213, 4 00000054: IMAGE_REL_I386_DIR32 _foo It looks like the offset `4` of the second field of your struct is correct in the object file, so this does seem to be a problem in the JIT-specific linking/loading.

I was told that my writeup lacked an example and details so I reproduced the code that X uses and I was able to boil down the issue to a couple of lines of code. Sorry again for the length of this email. Code was compiled on OpenBSD with clang 3.0-release. ======================================================================== With -O0 which works as X expects:

Hi everyone, I found that LLVM generates redundant code when calling functions with constant parameters, with optimizations disabled. Consider the following C code snippet: int foo(int x, int y); void bar() { foo(1, 2); foo(3, 4); } Clang/LLVM 6.0 generates the following assembly code: _bar: subl $32, %esp movl $1, %eax movl $2, %ecx movl $1, (%esp) movl $2, 4(%esp) movl %eax, 28(%esp) movl

Sorry I missed that important detail. The relevant part of the command line is: -cc1 -S -triple i386-pc-win32 I don't expect it matters if it's for Windows or Linux in this case. On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:16 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Can't say I've observed that behavior (though I'm just building from > top-of-tree rather than 6.0,

My code was hinky, but only in the sense that I was accidentally duplicating the definition variable in the module where the function was. With only the declaration in the second module loading the bitcode reproduces the issue. Managed an lli reproduction: $ cat jit-0.ll target datalayout = "e-m:x-p:32:32-i64:64-f80:32-n8:16:32-a:0:32-S32" target triple =

I noticed that we generate code like this for i386 PIC: calll L0$pb L0$pb: popl %eax movl %eax, -24(%ebp) ## 4-byte Spill I worry that this defeats the return address prediction for returns in the function because calls and returns no longer are matched. From Intel's Optimization Reference Manual: "The return address stack mechanism augments the static and dynamic

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Nikodemus Siivola < nikodemus at random-state.net> wrote: > Uh. Turns out that if I hide the pointer to @foo from LLVM by passing it > through an opaque identity function ... then everything works fine. > > Is this a bug in LLVM or is there some magic involving globals I'm > misunderstanding? > This looks like a bug in the handling of

Hello all, In r223757 I've committed a patch that performs, for the 32-bit x86 calling convention, the transformation of MOV instructions that push function arguments onto the stack into actual PUSH instructions. For example, it will transform this: subl $16, %esp movl $4, 12(%esp) movl $3, 8(%esp) movl $2, 4(%esp) movl $1, (%esp) calll _func addl $16, %esp

Maybe we should also change the stack probing code. I think ___chkstk_ms is used since gcc 4.6. It simplifies the prologue generation code a bit. Regards, Kai On 10.12.2013 02:18, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > Mingw switched abis with the release of gcc 4.7 > (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html). The main change is that now > mingw (like msvc) given thiscall calling convention to

>> Any thoughs? > > I'm now struggling to see how GCC justifies it. What if a different > translation-unit declared those variables in a different order? I also > can't get the same behaviour here, do you have a more complete > command-line? Ah, I see; the translation-unit that does the optimisation needs to have them as a definition (i.e. "= {0}") rather

> Could be, echristo, bigcheese, would this be correct for Mach-O and COFF? bigcheese noted on IRC that the test crashes the COFF emitter. For some reason I am always getting movl $256, %eax ## imm = 0x100 calll *%eax on darwin already, so I guess you are right, the correct would be isTargetELF() && TM.getRelocationModel() == Reloc::Static; Please include a test

2011/10/21 Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>: >> Could be, echristo, bigcheese, would this be correct for Mach-O and COFF? > > bigcheese noted on IRC that the test crashes the COFF emitter. For some > reason I am always getting > >        movl    $256, %eax              ## imm = 0x100 >        calll   *%eax > > on darwin already IIRC, we

Eli, Hm. There's a test in (CodeGen/X86/call-imm.ll) which uses darwin with relocation model static. It expects to use call-to-immediate. Is this in error? Should I disable this check? - pdox On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > 2011/10/21 Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>: >>> Could be,

Hi Duncan, David, Sean. Thanks for your reply. > It'd be interesting if you could find a design that also treated these > the same: > > (B ^ A) | ((A ^ B) ^ C) -> (A ^ B) | C > (B ^ A) | ((B ^ C) ^ A) -> (A ^ B) | C > (B ^ A) | ((C ^ A) ^ B) -> (A ^ B) | C > > I.e., `^` is also associative. Agree with Duncan on including associative operation too.