search for: lbar

...gmae=c(0.172239074,0.188209271,0.193703774,0.172659891,0.164427247,0.24602361,0.173555309,0.186701165,0.193150456, 0.1857315601) ss=c(56.49,56.39,56.55,57.49,57.37,55.02,56.02,54.35,54.09, 54.67) orange=rep(21.25,10) apple2=expression(rint*(1.0-rec)*(1.0-(pnorm(-lambda/2.0+log(((ss+(tot/sh*1000.0)*lbar)/(tot/sh*1000.0)/lbar*exp(lambda*lambda)))/lambda)-((ss+(tot/sh*1000.0)*lbar)/(tot/sh*1000.0)/lbar*exp(lambda*lambda))*pnorm(-lambda/2.0-log(((ss+(tot/sh*1000.0)*lbar)/(tot/sh*1000.0)/lbar*exp(lambda*lambda)))/lambda))+(exp(rint*(lambda*lambda/(sigmae*ss/(ss+lbar*(tot/sh*1000.0)))/(sigmae*ss/(ss+lb...

...y of the above cases. I have attached my code bellow and could you please help me take a look? Best Wishes Yuchen Luo rm(list = ls()) ui=matrix(c(1,-1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,-1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,-1),6,3) ci=c(0,-0.5,0,-2,0,-0.6) apple=expression(rr*(1.0-rec)*(1.0-(pnorm(-lambda/2.0+log(((ss+(tot/sh* 1000.0)*lbar)/(tot/sh*1000.0 )/lbar*exp(lambda*lambda)))/lambda)-((ss+(tot/sh*1000.0)*lbar)/(tot/sh* 1000.0)/lbar*exp(lambda*lambda))*pnorm(-lambda/2.0-log(((ss+(tot/sh*1000.0 )*lbar)/(tot/sh*1000.0 )/lbar*exp(lambda*lambda)))/lambda))+(exp(rr*(lambda*lambda/(sigmae*ss/(ss+lbar*(tot/sh* 1000.0)))/(sigmae*ss/(ss...

...>> statically linked libc as well as a libbar.a autolinked from a foo.o. The >>> link command line would look like this: >>> >>> ld foo.o -lc >>> >>> Now foo.o autolinks against bar. The command line becomes: >>> >>> ld foo.o -lc -lbar >>> >> >> Actually, I was thinking that on a GNU linker the command line would >> become "ld foo.o -lc -( -lbar )-"; but, this doesn't affect your point. >> >> >>> >>> If libbar.a requires an additional object file from libc.a,...

...tolinked from a foo.o. The >>>>> link command line would look like this: >>>>> >>>>> ld foo.o -lc >>>>> >>>>> Now foo.o autolinks against bar. The command line becomes: >>>>> >>>>> ld foo.o -lc -lbar >>>>> >>>> >>>> Actually, I was thinking that on a GNU linker the command line would >>>> become "ld foo.o -lc -( -lbar )-"; but, this doesn't affect your point. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>&...

...t; in the link? I'm imagining the case where you have a statically linked libc > as well as a libbar.a autolinked from a foo.o. The link command line would > look like this: > > ld foo.o -lc > > Now foo.o autolinks against bar. The command line becomes: > > ld foo.o -lc -lbar > Actually, I was thinking that on a GNU linker the command line would become "ld foo.o -lc -( -lbar )-"; but, this doesn't affect your point. > > If libbar.a requires an additional object file from libc.a, it will not be > added to the link. > > As it stands all...

...link command line would look like this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ld foo.o -lc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now foo.o autolinks against bar. The command line becomes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ld foo.o -lc -lbar >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, I was thinking that on a GNU linker the command line would >>>>>> become "ld foo.o -lc -( -lbar )-"; but, this doesn't affect your point. >>>>>> >>>&gt...

...th INPUT, add groups of archives to be searched with GROUP, name the output file with OUTPUT, add new library path directories with SEARCH_DIR, etc… Also keep in mind that that linker scripts are usually "inlined" with other command line options. For example: ld foo.o --defsym=x=12 -Lbar -T beagle-ram.ld -lbaz bar.o As you said, it makes sense to parse it during command line argument parsing. -- Meador Inge CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded http://www.mentor.com/embedded-software

...link command line would look like this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ld foo.o -lc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now foo.o autolinks against bar. The command line becomes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ld foo.o -lc -lbar >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, I was thinking that on a GNU linker the command line would >>>>>> become "ld foo.o -lc -( -lbar )-"; but, this doesn't affect your point. >>>>>> >>>&gt...

...>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ld foo.o -lc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now foo.o autolinks against bar. The command line becomes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ld foo.o -lc -lbar >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Actually, I was thinking that on a GNU linker the command line >>>>>>>> would become "ld foo.o -lc -( -lbar )-"; but, this doesn't affect your >>>&gt...

...;>>>>>>>> ld foo.o -lc >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now foo.o autolinks against bar. The command line becomes: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ld foo.o -lc -lbar >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Actually, I was thinking that on a GNU linker the command line >>>>>>>>>> would become "ld foo.o -lc -( -lbar )-"; but, this doesn...

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > You might want to look at the ELFLayout changes to see what functionality is > missing from that. > > The ELFLayoutOptions has a hook into reading the Linker script which needs > to be implemented. So, looking into it a bit, I think that ELFLayoutOptions is not the right place to parse the

...For example: foo.c: int main(void) { return bar() } bar.c: int bar() { return 123; } In the native case, you have three options to link these files. 1. Classic static linking: $ clang foo.c bar.c 2. Static linking with the archive. $ clang -c bar.c $ ar q libbar.a bar.o $ clang foo.c -lbar -L. 3. Dynamic linking: $ clang -c foo.c $ clang -shared bar.c -o libbar.so $ clang foo.c -lbar -L. $ nm a.out ... U bar ... ========================================== Currently, lib/Linker supports first two cases, but not the third. I would like to be able add this functionality and it even...

...o be searched > with GROUP, name the output file with OUTPUT, add new library path directories > with SEARCH_DIR, etc… > > Also keep in mind that that linker scripts are usually "inlined" with other command line > options. For example: > > ld foo.o --defsym=x=12 -Lbar -T beagle-ram.ld -lbaz bar.o This is different. There are things in the command line which would a) add symbols into the output This is generic functionality which is needed by all the platforms. The symbols could be parsed and handed over to ELF Writer to add symbols, because types of sym...

> Yes, this is no problem. You can do something like > this: > > $ llvmgcc X.c -c -o X.bc > $ llc X.bc -o X.s > $ gcc Y.c -o Y.o -c > $ gcc X.s Y.o -o program > $ ./program Ok, fine, and what about the interpreter? It takes 100% llvm, doesn't it? Or is there some kind of import facility (perhaps as an specially interpreted call or as an extension to llvm which makes

...libFoo.so native library that we need to link. It also contains a libBar.so bytecode library. Another directory in our -L path has a bytecode version of libFoo.so and a native version of libBar.so. What do we do? llvm-g++ -Wl,-native -shared -o libtest.so test.o -L/foobar -lfoo -L/barfoo -lbar /foobar libFoo.so --native libBar.so --bytecode /barfoo libFoo.so --bytecode libBar.so --native Now, it is possible to test for this situation, but even if we know that it is going to happen, how do we tell gcc or the system linker how to do the correct thing? -------------- next p...

At Sony we offer autolinking as a feature in our ELF toolchain. We would like to see full support for this feature upstream as there is anecdotal evidence that it would find use beyond Sony. In general autolinking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-linking) allows developers to specify inputs to the linker in their source code. LLVM and Clang already have support for autolinking on ELF via

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:32 PM Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I've put some comments on the proposal inline. Having to had to debug > library selection problems where all the libraries are visible on the > linker command line, I would prefer if people didn't embed difficult > to find directives in object files, but I'm guessing in

...ked inputs? It gives developers some more control at no cost (apart form the possible confusion). > > The other option is to handle autolinked libraries as soon as we find > them, so that if foo.o autolinks libbar, the linker would act as if foo.o > in the command line is followed by -lbar. I'd think that's not too bad or > arguably more straightforward semantics than autolinking everything all at > once at the end. > So I played around with this idea a bit. Some background info: MSVC searches libraries added via "comment lib" pragmas last, after searchin...

...gt;> cost (apart form the possible confusion). >> >> >>> >>> The other option is to handle autolinked libraries as soon as we find >>> them, so that if foo.o autolinks libbar, the linker would act as if foo.o >>> in the command line is followed by -lbar. I'd think that's not too bad or >>> arguably more straightforward semantics than autolinking everything all at >>> once at the end. >>> >> >> So I played around with this idea a bit. Some background info: >> >> MSVC searches libraries adde...