search for: init_priority

Hi list: This is my first time to post my question on the list. Thanks for your help. I am solving a quadratic programming using R. Here is my question: w = arg min 0.5*w'Mw - w'N s. t. sum(w) = 1; w>0 note: w is weight vector, each w_i must >=0, and the sum of w =1. Here is my R code: A <-matrix(c(2.26,1.26,1.12,1.12,2.27,1.13,1.12,1.13,2.2),3,3); B <-

Hi, I noticed that there are some diagnostics discrepancies between clang and gcc related to `__attribute__((constructor(n)))` and `__attribute__((destructor(n)))`. *[clang]* It seems priorities >65535 and <0 on ctor/dtor functions are ignored and are set back to default 65535 in clang and Clang only gives an error when > 32-bit unsigned value specified. *[g++]* g++ gives an error for

.... You could model the check after what is done in `handleInitPriorityAttr()` which has to do a similar range check. However, you should also verify whether values < 0 or > 65535 are reserved to the implementation itself (perhaps are used as part of system headers like glibc) as they are with `init_priority` values < 101 or > 65535. The `init_priority` attribute shows how to exclude system headers from the range check if that's needed. ~Aaron > > Thank you, > Xiangling > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llv...

Dale, I took a closer look at the first llc failure, initp1. Looking at the initp1.llc file in gdb, it appears that the statically constructed objects without the init_priority attribute are being constructed before those with it, though the test seems to expect the opposite. The initp1.llc.s file seems to have the .ctors table in the right order, but the _init code is reading the table in reverse order. Since I guess the init code is coming from the local startup modul...

...nesen <dalej at apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 30, 2010, at 3:11 PMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > > Dale, > > I took a closer look at the first llc failure, initp1. Looking at the > initp1.llc file in gdb, it appears that the statically constructed objects > without the init_priority attribute are being constructed before those with > it, though the test seems to expect the opposite. > > The initp1.llc.s file seems to have the .ctors table in the right order, > but the _init code is reading the table in reverse order. Since I guess the > init code is coming from...

On Aug 30, 2010, at 3:11 PMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > Dale, > > I took a closer look at the first llc failure, initp1. Looking at > the initp1.llc file in gdb, it appears that the statically > constructed objects without the init_priority attribute are being > constructed before those with it, though the test seems to expect > the opposite. > > The initp1.llc.s file seems to have the .ctors table in the right > order, but the _init code is reading the table in reverse order. > Since I guess the init code i...

...te: > >> >> On Aug 30, 2010, at 3:11 PMPDT, John Thompson wrote: >> >> Dale, >> >> I took a closer look at the first llc failure, initp1. Looking at the >> initp1.llc file in gdb, it appears that the statically constructed objects >> without the init_priority attribute are being constructed before those with >> it, though the test seems to expect the opposite. >> >> The initp1.llc.s file seems to have the .ctors table in the right order, >> but the _init code is reading the table in reverse order. Since I guess the >> init...

...> > wrote: > > On Aug 30, 2010, at 3:11 PMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > >> Dale, >> >> I took a closer look at the first llc failure, initp1. Looking at >> the initp1.llc file in gdb, it appears that the statically >> constructed objects without the init_priority attribute are being >> constructed before those with it, though the test seems to expect >> the opposite. >> >> The initp1.llc.s file seems to have the .ctors table in the right >> order, but the _init code is reading the table in reverse order. >> Since...

...> On Aug 30, 2010, at 3:11 PMPDT, John Thompson wrote: >> >>> Dale, >>> >>> I took a closer look at the first llc failure, initp1. Looking at >>> the initp1.llc file in gdb, it appears that the statically >>> constructed objects without the init_priority attribute are being >>> constructed before those with it, though the test seems to expect >>> the opposite. >>> >>> The initp1.llc.s file seems to have the .ctors table in the right >>> order, but the _init code is reading the table in reverse orde...

Hi all, While reviewing a recent clang documentation change, I became aware of an issue with the way that clang is handling FP denormals. There is currently some support for variations in the way denormals are handled, but it isn't consistent across architectures and generally feels kind of half-baked. I'd like to discuss possible solutions to this problem. First, there is a clang

CBE is fairly broken everywhere AFAIK, don't worry about it. Most of the JIT failures are in tests that exercise exception handling. Not sure if that is supposed to work in your environment, it works in some JITs and not others. The LLC failures are cause for concern. On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:59 AMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > Dale, > > Thanks for reviewing this. > > I have

Dale, Thanks for reviewing this. I have some newbie questions regarding the test-suite for you or anyone: I'm trying to run the test-suite as described in the "LLVM Testing Infrastructure Guide" on a Ubuntu x86 64 bit system. Initially I ran into problems with missing tools like yacc, which I fixed as I went along until the make at the test-suite level completed. However, I get

Sean and Alexey have said a lot on this topic. Here is my version of explanation that LLVM testing is not suitable to replace end to end testing. - The most important reason being that LLVM tests tend to test 'implementation details'. This has many drawbacks: a) by only writing test cases like this, it is hard to expose bugs inherited in the implementation itself; b) the connection

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:34 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:11 PM, David Blaikie