search for: first_numbers

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

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

On Sep 19, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > Make sure to use DAG.getTargetNode() with custom opcodes. "target" > nodes are encoded with an implicit delta added to their enum value. > > Is this documented anywhere that getTargetNode is the preferred > method to use in a Custom Lowering function? Even the other backends > use getNode in their lowering

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

________________________________ 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

Hi, I'm implementing __builtin_setjmp and __builtin_longjmp for Sparc 32 bit processors (64 bit later, time allowing). I'm basing the code on the PowerPC version, which itself is based on the X86 version. This code is very nearly working, and I've had it working for -O0 optimisation (with a slightly different version to that below), so I know it's close. However, the PowerPC