search for: effecti

I'm trying to replace SDIvRem (whch returns two i16 types) with a custom that returns i32 or i16. I am getting the Assertion (!Node || ResNo < Node->getNumValues() && "Invalid result number for the given node!") Seems that it doesn't like returning one value but how do you return more than one value? I am doing this in the LowerOperation for the case SDIVREM and a

This problem was reported to me by a friend who has an LLVM port that is not put back to open source. Essentially, there is an intrinsic call _lr which is a load register. so then user code has something like: start_time = _lr(TIMER_REGISTER) ..... some_code_to_time .... end_time = _lr(TIMER_REGISTER) So what happens is that LLVM moves the code as follows: start_time = _lr(TIMER_REGISTER)

Hi All, I would like to ask a question on fixed and random effecti in lme. I am fiddlying around Mick Crawley dataset "rats" : http://www.bio.ic.ac.uk/research/mjcraw/statcomp/data/ The advantage is that most work is already done in Crawley's book (page 361 onwards) so I can check what I am doing. I am tryg to reproduce the nested analysis on pag...

I realized that the rails command could be used very effectiely for non RoR apps, and, with a little tweaking, even nonRuby apps. Anyone give this a try? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

He has tried this and it does not solve the problem. The problem is that someone wants to, for example, time a dsp instruction. THe dsp instruction has no side effects and does not access memory. It's a valid thing to do. Should be some way to do this I would think. Tia. Reed On 02/21/2014 11:24 AM, Tim Northover wrote: > Hi Reed, > >> How would this intrinsic be implemented

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote: > That's an unintentional change. However, the reason for this change > was to make optional of trivially copyable types trivially copyable, > adding a user-provided move ctor would break that again :( > > I'm leaning towards making the non-trivial version of llvm::Optional > more

That's an unintentional change. However, the reason for this change was to make optional of trivially copyable types trivially copyable, adding a user-provided move ctor would break that again :( I'm leaning towards making the non-trivial version of llvm::Optional more like std::optional. In the long term std::optional is going to replace llvm::Optional. How bad would that be for your use

Hey Ben, This change broke some clangd code (no failing test, mea culpa), because it changed the move semantics. Previously: a moved-from llvm::Optional was None (for all types). Now: a moved-from llvm::Optional is None (for non-trivial types), and has the old value (for trivial types). FWIW, a moved-from std::optional is *not* nullopt, and contains the moved-from value. This seems sad to me,