search for: cexpr

Can someone help me calculate correlations for grouped values? Heres what my first few line of data look like: > head(cmexpr) LLID GMID CEXPR MEXPR 1 1005 10831 2.057462 -0.08486 2 1005 10831 2.057515 -0.08486 3 1005 10831 2.057462 0.01209 4 1005 10831 2.057515 0.01209 5 1005 10836 2.050980 0.17237 6 1005 10836 2.018576 0.17237 LLID is gene id, GMID is cell line id, the EXPR columns are gene expression is two different microarray...

...);\n" c_name name; + pr " #[allow(dead_code)]\n"; + pr " fn guestfs_free_%s_list(l: *const RawList<Raw%s>);\n" c_name name; + ) external_structs; + pr "}\n"; + + (* [Outline] There are three types for each optional structs: SOptArgs, + * CExprSOptArgs, RawSOptArgs. + * SOptArgs: for Rust bindings' API. This can be seen by bindings' users. + * CExprSOptArgs: Each field has C expression(e.g. CString, *const c_char) + * RawSOptArgs: Each field has raw pointers or integer values + * + * SOptArgs ---try_into()---> CExprSO...

It very much depends on what is following the code snippit. If the second "if" is guarding a substantial block of code, "constantExpr" might very well be a good name. Otherwise something like "cExpr" or "constExpr" might be fine. In the past when I have seen things like "CE" in the code, it's not always immediately clear to me what it is. I have to go find the declaration. -David Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lis...

Patch 9 is a kind of dumping ground of all kinds of stuff. It may be better to spend some time with git rebase -i trying to work this into more coherent patches. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a live

...);\n" c_name name; + pr " #[allow(dead_code)]\n"; + pr " fn guestfs_free_%s_list(l: *const RawList<Raw%s>);\n" c_name name; ) external_structs; pr "}\n"; + (* [Outline] There are three types for each optional structs: SOptArgs, + * CExprSOptArgs, RawSOptArgs. + * SOptArgs: for Rust bindings' API. This can be seen by bindings' users. + * CExprSOptArgs: Each field has C expression(e.g. CString, *const c_char) + * RawSOptArgs: Each field has raw pointers or integer values + * + * SOptArgs ---try_into()---> CExprSO...

Inline George > On Jan 26, 2015, at 1:05 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > George, given that, can you just build constexpr handling (it's not as easy as you think) as a separate funciton and have it use it in the right places? Will do. :) > FWIW, my current list of CFLAA issues is: > > 1. Unknown values (results from ptrtoint, incoming

George, given that, can you just build constexpr handling (it's not as easy as you think) as a separate funciton and have it use it in the right places? FWIW, my current list of CFLAA issues is: 1. Unknown values (results from ptrtoint, incoming pointers, etc) are not treated as unknown. These should be done through graph edge (so that they can be one way, otherwise, you will unify

...);\n" c_name name; + pr " #[allow(dead_code)]\n"; + pr " fn guestfs_free_%s_list(l: *const RawList<Raw%s>);\n" c_name name; + ) external_structs; + pr "}\n"; + + (* [Outline] There are three types for each optional structs: SOptArgs, + * CExprSOptArgs, RawSOptArgs. + * SOptArgs: for Rust bindings' API. This can be seen by bindings' users. + * CExprSOptArgs: Each field has C expression(e.g. CString, *const c_char) + * RawSOptArgs: Each field has raw pointers or integer values + * + * SOptArgs ---try_into()---> CExprSO...

...quot; #[allow(dead_code)]\n"; > + pr " fn guestfs_free_%s_list(l: *const RawList<Raw%s>);\n" > c_name name; > + ) external_structs; > + pr "}\n"; > + > + (* [Outline] There are three types for each optional structs: SOptArgs, > + * CExprSOptArgs, RawSOptArgs. > + * SOptArgs: for Rust bindings' API. This can be seen by bindings' > users. > + * CExprSOptArgs: Each field has C expression(e.g. CString, *const > c_char) > + * RawSOptArgs: Each field has raw pointers or integer values > + * > + * SO...

...);\n" c_name name; + pr " #[allow(dead_code)]\n"; + pr " fn guestfs_free_%s_list(l: *const RawList<Raw%s>);\n" c_name name; + ) external_structs; + pr "}\n"; + + (* [Outline] There are three types for each optional structs: SOptArgs, + * CExprSOptArgs, RawSOptArgs. + * SOptArgs: for Rust bindings' API. This can be seen by bindings' users. + * CExprSOptArgs: Each field has C expression(e.g. CString, *const c_char) + * RawSOptArgs: Each field has raw pointers or integer values + * + * SOptArgs ---try_into()---> CExprSO...

> Is this just trying if the guestfs can be linked with? Yes. In OCaml bindings, there is the corresponding test( https://github.com/libguestfs/libguestfs/blob/master/ocaml/t/guestfs_010_load.ml). I just mimicked it. If it is not required, I will remove it. divided the generated files and handmade files in rust/src/ directory. I'll send this fixed patch to this mailing list. I'm not

On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 10:04:57AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 10:49:55AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 10:10:10AM +0200, Pino Toscano wrote: >> >On Saturday, 6 July 2019 13:03:24 CEST Martin Kletzander wrote: >> >>Just one thing, the Cargo.toml includes a version under which the crate would be >>

...);\n" c_name name; + pr " #[allow(dead_code)]\n"; + pr " fn guestfs_free_%s_list(l: *const RawList<Raw%s>);\n" c_name name; + ) external_structs; + pr "}\n"; + + (* [Outline] There are three types for each optional structs: SOptArgs, + * CExprSOptArgs, RawSOptArgs. + * SOptArgs: for Rust bindings' API. This can be seen by bindings' users. + * CExprSOptArgs: Each field has C expression(e.g. CString, *const c_char) + * RawSOptArgs: Each field has raw pointers or integer values + * + * SOptArgs ---try_into()---> CExprSO...

...for (auto &Bb : Fn->getBasicBlockList()) { + for (auto &Inst : Bb.getInstList()) { + addInstructionToGraph(Analysis, Inst, ReturnedValues, Map, Graph); + } + } +} + +static void constexprToEdges(CFLAliasAnalysis &Analysis, + ConstantExpr &CExprToCollapse, + SmallVectorImpl<Edge> &Results) { + SmallVector<ConstantExpr*, 4> Worklist; + Worklist.push_back(&CExprToCollapse); + + SmallVector<Edge, 8> ConstexprEdges; + while (!Worklist.empty()) { + auto* CExpr = Worklist.pop_back_val(...

...);\n" c_name name; + pr " #[allow(dead_code)]\n"; + pr " fn guestfs_free_%s_list(l: *const RawList<Raw%s>);\n" c_name name; + ) external_structs; + pr "}\n"; + + (* [Outline] There are three types for each optional structs: SOptArgs, + * CExprSOptArgs, RawSOptArgs. + * SOptArgs: for Rust bindings' API. This can be seen by bindings' users. + * CExprSOptArgs: Each field has C expression(e.g. CString, *const c_char) + * RawSOptArgs: Each field has raw pointers or integer values + * + * SOptArgs ---try_into()---> CExprSO...

Hi Hiroyuki, sorry for the late reply. Most of the work is definitely nice! There are few notes below, although they are not big issues. I will check this patch once more on monday, especially the rust parts. Otherwise, I'd say that we are close to merging this :) On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 10:37:17 CEST Hiroyuki Katsura wrote: > From: Hiroyuki_Katsura

I would assume that the proper name in this case is constantExpr, and not CE. This is not really an acronym, but rather a shortcut taken for some unclear reason. > On 12. Feb 2019, at 13:02, Björn Pettersson A via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > (Sorry if this subject already has been discussed, but I could not find any clear rules/recommendations.) > >

I fixed the patch I submitted before based on comments, and there are some commits which are merged or divided. So, I will re-send all the patches. Regards, Hiroyuki Katsura

...< > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> It very much depends on what is following the code snippit. If the >> second "if" is guarding a substantial block of code, "constantExpr" >> might very well be a good name. Otherwise something like "cExpr" or >> "constExpr" might be fine. >> >> In the past when I have seen things like "CE" in the code, it's not >> always immediately clear to me what it is. I have to go find the >> declaration. >> >>...

From: Hiroyuki_Katsura <hiroyuki.katsura.0513@gmail.com> --- Makefile.am | 4 ++++ configure.ac | 3 +++ generator/Makefile.am | 3 +++ generator/bindtests.ml | 3 +++ generator/bindtests.mli | 1 + generator/main.ml | 5 +++++ generator/rust.ml | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ generator/rust.mli | 19 +++++++++++++++++++