search for: first_numb

Hi ! I was talking to a seasider and he asked me if it was easy to do the following thing using rails : 1) ask a number to the user 2) ask a second number 3) give the addition of the two number and a link to be able to replay All these things have to be done in one controller and one action, there is no need for verification and other stuff. I tried but I''ve got some problems

Hi, I have two questions about the above method of the SelectionDAGISel class. 1. The overrides in PPCDAGToDAGISel and in I64DAGToDAGISel are identical (except for PPCISD::FIRST_NUMBER vs. IA64ISD::FIRST_NUMBER). Maybe, this means that it would be better if SelectionDAGISel had default implementation? That would remove this code duplication. If desired, SelectionDAGISel can have both implementation and be pure, so that derived class authors are forced to think how they want th...

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Vladimir Prus wrote: > I have two questions about the above method of the SelectionDAGISel class. > > 1. The overrides in PPCDAGToDAGISel and in I64DAGToDAGISel are identical > (except for PPCISD::FIRST_NUMBER vs. IA64ISD::FIRST_NUMBER). > Maybe, this means that it would be better if SelectionDAGISel had default > implementation? That would remove this code duplication. Yup, that would be great. > 2. What are possible reasons for *not* using the default implementation? X86 > has completel...

...(CC); > Opc = SPISD::BRFCC; > } > return DAG.getNode(Opc, MVT::Other, Chain, Dest, > DAG.getConstant(SPCC, MVT::i32), CompareFlag); Actually, I'm wrong, sorry about that. It looks like the encoding is in the definition of the enum: enum { FIRST_NUMBER = ISD::BUILTIN_OP_END+SP::INSTRUCTION_LIST_END, CMPICC, // Compare two GPR operands, set icc. CMPFCC, // Compare two FP operands, set fcc. BRICC, // Branch to dest on icc condition BRFCC, // Branch to dest on fcc condition ... Are your "targ...

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Vladimir Prus wrote: >> I have two questions about the above method of the SelectionDAGISel >> class. >> >> 1. The overrides in PPCDAGToDAGISel and in I64DAGToDAGISel are identical >> (except for PPCISD::FIRST_NUMBER vs. IA64ISD::FIRST_NUMBER). >> Maybe, this means that it would be better if SelectionDAGISel had default >> implementation? That would remove this code duplication. > > Yup, that would be great. > >> 2. What are possible reasons for *not* using the default implementat...

________________________________ From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Lattner Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 10:49 AM To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Custom Opcodes versus built-in opcodes On Sep 18, 2008, at 4:04 PM, Villmow, Micah wrote: I am using lowering instructions and using custom opcodes that

I am trying to get polymorphic relations to work for my app. What I am trying to do is explained by this picture http://iroll.org/code/ I can''t figure out the code for in the controller to create a new phone_number and assign it to a person. I have tried everything I can think of. A) do my models look correct? B) what would the commands look like in the console or a controller action

...get->is64Bit()) { setOperationAction(ISD::ADDC, MVT::i64, Custom); setOperationAction(ISD::ADDE, MVT::i64, Custom); *************** *** 1808,1835 **** const char *SparcTargetLowering::getTargetNodeName(unsigned Opcode) const { switch ((SPISD::NodeType)Opcode) { ! case SPISD::FIRST_NUMBER: break; ! case SPISD::CMPICC: return "SPISD::CMPICC"; ! case SPISD::CMPFCC: return "SPISD::CMPFCC"; ! case SPISD::BRICC: return "SPISD::BRICC"; ! case SPISD::BRXCC: return "SPISD::BRXCC"; ! case SPISD::BRFCC: return "SP...