search for: catched

I have been playing with the cookbook type of tutorials building a fish tournament scoring piece and am having a bit of a problem with a DB field called "points" in my "catch" table that is not input by the user but is calulated based on a "size" field that is input by the user. I have the following in my catch_controller.db def new @catch = Catch.new @fish =

Hi Reid, Thanks for the input. You wrote: > The @_Z4testv.unwind.1 helper just calls ~Inner(), but not ~Outer. That’s actually intentional. The thing to keep in mind is that all of the landing pads are going to be effectively removed by the time the final object image is generated. They are just there to facilitate the table generation, and in the __CxxFrameHandler3 case they don’t mean

I'm looking at the docs, and while it refers to a "catch-all" clause, it doesn't describe how to construct one. In the old scheme, a selector value of 0 was used. What's the corresponding technique for the new scheme? Do I need to update my personality function to handle catch-alls (it wasn't needed in the previous scheme)? -- -- Talin -------------- next part

Hi Talin, > I'm looking at the docs, and while it refers to a "catch-all" clause, hopefully Bill will get rid of the first reference to "catch-all" since that section is inaccurate. it doesn't > describe how to construct one. There is in general no such thing as a catch-all: it depends on the personality function (i.e. the language), and, for example, the

Here is an alternative proposal to Bill's. It is closer to what we already have (which can be seen as a good or a bad thing!), and is also closer to what gcc does. It is more incremental than Bill's and introduces fewer new concepts. Executive summary ----------------- Remove the personality and list of catches out of eh.selector and stick them directly on invoke instructions. The

Hi Chris, >>> Is it intended that "cleanup ty_1, ty_2" potentially be different to >>> "cleanup ty_1 cleanup ty_2"? Perhaps this is useful for funky personality >>> functions. >>> >> Yeah. One can basically interleave the catches and filters. But having two catch or two filter clauses in a row should be semantically the same as the

On Dec 1, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Executive summary > ----------------- > > Remove the personality and list of catches out of eh.selector and stick them > directly on invoke instructions. > > The invoke instruction > ---------------------- > > The invoke instruction is modified by adding extra catch info to it: > > <result> = invoke

Dear R-devel community, There appears to be an inconsistency in R C API about the exceptions that can be raised from C code. Mapping of R C funs to corresponding R functions is as follows. error -> stop warning -> warning REprintf -> message Rprintf -> cat Rprint/cat is of course not an exception, I listed it just for completeness. The inconsistency I would like to report is

On Aug 2, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >>>> Is it intended that "cleanup ty_1, ty_2" potentially be different to >>>> "cleanup ty_1 cleanup ty_2"? Perhaps this is useful for funky personality >>>> functions. >>>> >>> Yeah. One can basically interleave the catches and filters. But having two catch or two filter

I am working on adding support for C++ exception handling when compiling for a native Windows target (that is a target with "MSVC" specified as the environment). Because of differences between how the native Windows runtime handles exceptions and the Itanium-based model used by current LLVM exception handling code, I believe this will require some extensions to the LLVM IR, though

Hi all, I have a question regarding subsetting of large data frames. I have two data frames ?catches? and ?tows? and they both have the same 30 variables (columns). I would like to select rows in the data frame ?tows? where all 5 specific variables are NOT matched in ?catches. That is to say, the combination of these 5 variables is unique. One or more of the variables could be the same but the

On Dec 1, 2010, at 1:12 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 1 December 2010 07:04, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: >> The unwind edge from an invoke instruction jumps to a landing pad. That landing pad contains code which performs optional cleanups, and then determines which catch handler to call (if any). If no catch handlers are applicable, the exception resumes propagation

Hi Reid, I've been working on the outlining code and have a prototype that produces what I want for a simple case. Now I'm thinking about the heuristics for recognizing the various logical pieces for C++ exception handling code and removing them once they’ve been cloned. I've been working from various comments you've made earlier in this thread, and I'd like to run something

On 1 December 2010 09:46, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > Nor these. Basically, I want the basic block that's labeled a "landing pad" to be jumped to by only a dispatch resume or unwind edge of invoke. We could do this with the c.dtor and ch.int here, but it would mean inserting useless "cleanup dispatches" that only resume to the block (see

I am new to the landingpad (which is relatively new too). Documentation http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#i_landingpad leaves some questions open: 1. What happens when actual exception type isn't listed in catch or filter clauses? Does it still return the corresponding structure like if it was listed? Or behavior is undefined? 2. What is 'somety'? Shouldn't it maybe say

Hi All, I'm trying to catch an exception that is "passed through" an LLVM ExecutionEngine but I am unable to do so. Specifically, in C++ code, inside a try/catch block, I call a JITted function, which in turn calls back into my code. Everything works fine unless an exception is thrown; I would except the outermost try/catch(...) block to catch the exception thrown in my innermost

On Sep 25, 2011, at 1:02 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Talin, > >> I'm looking at the docs, and while it refers to a "catch-all" clause, > > hopefully Bill will get rid of the first reference to "catch-all" since > that section is inaccurate. > I *think* this is now correct. Please check. :) > it doesn't >> describe how to construct

Thank you Luke for prompt reply. Is it possible then to request a new function to R C API "message" that would equivalent to R "message" function? Similarly as we now have C "warning" and C "error" functions. Best, Jan On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 5:25 PM Tierney, Luke <luke-tierney at uiowa.edu> wrote: > > On Sun, 15 Sep 2019, Jan Gorecki wrote:

Gordon Henriksen wrote: > What blocks would a phi node in %catch require for a case like this? > > define i8 @f(i1 %b) { > > entry: > > b label %try > > try: unwinds to %catch > > b i1 %b, label %then, label %else > > then: unwinds to %catch > > ret void > > else: unwinds to %catch > > ret

Hi Bill, > This is similar to my first proposal. yup, I still consider your first proposal to have been basically sound. But it also suffers from a major problem, > which stopped that proposal dead in its tracks. Namely, you have information in > one place which needs to be shared in two different, but possibly disjoint, > places: the type, filters, and personality information. In