search for: checktypes

I''m writing ldirectord.cf files via puppet and unfortunately ldirectord is sensitive to blank lines in the file. I have the following code in my .erb file virtual=<%= vip %>:<%= port %> <% if weights.empty? then -%><% real_servers.each do |real_server| -%> real=<%= real_server %>:<%= port %> gate <% end -%><% else -%><%

Given 2 GEPs as follows, %tmp124 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.termbox* %termptr.1, i32 0, i32 5, !dbg !1051 ; <[2 x i16]*> [#uses=1] %tmp125 = getelementptr inbounds [2 x i16]* %tmp124, i64 0, i64 0, !dbg !1051 ; <i16*> [#uses=1] can I replace the 2nd one with %tmp126 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.termbox* %termptr.1, i32 0, i32 5, i64 0, i64 0 ; <i16*> When I try to

Using GCC 3.4.6 20060404 (Red Hat 3.4.6-11) I've had this problem with the ALWAYS_INLINE directive in SelectionDAGISel.cpp: /arm/scratch/egrimley/llvm.svn/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp: In function `bool CheckChildType(const unsigned char*, unsigned int&, llvm::SDValue, const llvm::TargetLowering&, unsigned int)':

On 2/24/11 10:39 AM, Arushi Aggarwal wrote: > Given 2 GEPs as follows, > > %tmp124 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.termbox* %termptr.1, i32 0, > i32 5, !dbg !1051 ; <[2 x i16]*> [#uses=1] > %tmp125 = getelementptr inbounds [2 x i16]* %tmp124, i64 0, i64 0, > !dbg !1051 ; <i16*> [#uses=1] > > can I replace the 2nd one with > > %tmp126 = getelementptr

Thanks John. You are right. Is this also true for constant GEP expressions? Do they also create a pointer to the calculated type? The language manual does not state so explicitly. Arushi On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:47 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 2/24/11 10:39 AM, Arushi Aggarwal wrote: > >> Given 2 GEPs as follows, >> >> %tmp124 =

Hi all, Reading the wikipedia page on R, I stumbled across the following: http://fluff.info/blog/arch/00000172.htm It does seem interesting that the C execution is that much slower from R than from a native C program. Could any of the more technically knowledgeable people explain why this is so? The author also have some thought-provoking opinions on R being no-good and that you should write

Hi Reid, Thanks for your help! I could detect the problem and the module now can be saved (it was a problem with some Alloca instructions). I could not find a "verify" method in the Module class, but just for the records, I did this: --------------- PassManager Passes; // Add an appropriate TargetData instance for this module... Passes.add(new TargetData("save",

hi all, has anyone able to configure ultramonkey for sip (namely asterisk). i tried from this tutorial: http://blog.iclutton.com/2008/01/load-balancing-and-high-availablity.html i have this on my ldirectord.cf: virtual=123.45.67.155:5060 real=123.45.67.130:5060 gate real=123.45.67.131:5060 gate service=sip scheduler=rr protocol=udp

Hi all, In several of the transformations I'm working on I need to embed the logical equivalent of puts/printf/etc. calls inline with code. I am having some difficulties getting the transformation code right. As I understand it, I should be creating a ConstantArray based on the string (in this case I'm taking an instruction, 'disassembling' it to an ostringstream then turning

Hi Ricardo, Yes, its because you have an invalid module. You should run Module::verify before attempting to write the bytecode. This will pinpoint the problem for you. However, I think I know what's going on: you've left an object (a Value not a Type) in the symbol table that is not in the Module. Not quite sure how you do that, but I suppose its possible if you manipulated the symbol

Hello, I am receiving this error: assert(Slot != -1 && "Value in symtab but has no slot number!!"); While trying to generate a module at run time using LLVM classes. Specifically with an instance of StoreInst class. After I generate all the instructions, I try to save the Module to bytecode, but I receive that error in the method 'outputSymbolTable' Does anyone

On Mar 14, 2012, at 7:07 AM, Ivan Llopard wrote: > Le 07/03/2012 17:36, Jim Grosbach a écrit : >> On Mar 7, 2012, at 6:23 AM, Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jim, >>> >>> Thanks for your response. >>> >>> Le 06/03/2012 22:54, Jim Grosbach a écrit : >>>> Hi Ivan, >>>> On Mar 3,

Le 07/03/2012 17:36, Jim Grosbach a écrit : > On Mar 7, 2012, at 6:23 AM, Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Jim, >> >> Thanks for your response. >> >> Le 06/03/2012 22:54, Jim Grosbach a écrit : >>> Hi Ivan, >>> On Mar 3, 2012, at 4:48 AM, Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: >>>