search for: lexic

...ot;B" and for local static variable "z", however it will work fine with local variable "y". The local static variable has an open ticket in LLVM Bugzilla: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=19238 Background These are all the entities that can be declared inside a lexical scope (i.e. function or basic block): 1. Local variable 2. Local static variable 3. Imported Entity a. Imported declaration b. Imported module 4. Type a. Record (structure, class, union) b. Typedef In the current LLVM implementation only (1) the lo...

Let me start by saying that I am a fan of lexical scoping as a way of increasing confidence in your execution models. I am hoping to move from the now thoroughly debunked "wackyscope" model that used to plague many programming languages over to proper lexical scoping in my puppet configs. I''m just having trouble finding docu...

> Sorry for coming to the discussion so late. I have a couple of questions/comments: Actually, you're note is timely, because I'm planning to send out a patch (as soon as I update LangRef and rerun tests) that supports safelen but *not* lexical dependences. I don't need the safelen for Julia, but having done the work and seeing that OpenMP needs it, feel that I should finish the work to contribute it. Yes, safelen and lexical forward dependences are separable. I was initially under the impression that to implement OpenMP 4.0 simd...

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Aboud, Amjad via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I verified that GDB 7.10 does support “DW_AT_abstract_origin” attribute on > “DW_TAG_lexical_block”. > I take it you mean that it does the right thing, finding the direct children of the abstract block when stepping into the inlined subroutine, etc? & this was a recent change/fix - because you'd verified that this did not work previously/in recent past GDB versions? > T...

It's a problem in the OpenMP specification. The authors (including some from Intel) intended that the OpenMP simd construct assert no lexically backward dependences exist, but as you say, it's not obvious from the spec. One of our OpenMP community members is going to bring up the ambiguity with the OpenMP committee. - Arch -----Original Message----- From: Humphreys, Jonathan [mailto:j-humphreys at ti.com] Sent: Thursday, August...

Here's an attempt to nail down the annotation semantics with support for respecting forward lexical dependences. Each load, store, call, or invoke instruction can be labeled with !llvm.mem.vector_loop_access, which has two operands: * The first operand is an integer denoting lexical position. The positions need not be consecutive, and may contain duplicates. * The second operand is the sam...

More precisely, for a simd loop, if the safelen(VL) clause is specified, there should have no loop-carried lexical backward data dependency within the specified safe vector length VL. We will make this clear in the OpenMP 4.1 spec. Xinmin Tian (Intel) -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Hal Finkel Sent: Sunday, September 2...

...uot;.ll" emitted by llc, i could find the "startline" in metadata.   For this I could think of 2 approaches 1. Create a pass in llvm, to collect this information from the llvm instructions, by simply traversing them.   Identifying line number for each instruction and checking on the lexical block it points to. Also would maintain the parent/child lexical block relation using metadata information.   My "startline" is least line number associated with lexical block, and "endline" number is max line number associated with lexical block. 2. While "asm printing&q...

Yes, I think the 2 outcomes are: - the current spec is unclear and will be clarified - in order to support safelen() and even the simd construct itself, LLVM will require infrastructure work to know when a lexically backwards dependence may have been introduced. Jon -----Original Message----- From: Tian, Xinmin [mailto:xinmin.tian at intel.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 10:43 AM To: Renato Golin; Hal Finkel Cc: Humphreys, Jonathan; Robison, Arch; LLVM Dev Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] Proposal for &quot...

...----------------------------------------------- > *From:* Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> > *Sent:* Monday, March 20, 2023 12:20 AM > *To:* akshay kulkarni <akshay_e4 at hotmail.com>; R help Mailing list > <r-help at r-project.org> > *Subject:* Re: [R] lexical scoping for scripts...... > On 19/03/2023 2:33 p.m., akshay kulkarni wrote: >> Dear Duncun, >>? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?thanks for the reply.... >> >> So when I run a script in the system command line by R CMD BATCH, the >> objects created in the script cannot...

...from that file until the end of the file is reached, then the parsed expressions are evaluated sequentially in the chosen environment. > > What does this mean? I presume that any objects that are CREATED by the script are stored in the Global environment (if local = FALSE), but the rules for lexical scoping are the same as for functions, right? No, assignments will happen in the "chosen environment" as well. I'm not sure exactly what you mean about the rules for lexical scoping, but I think the answer is yes. So if you do the following: Put this code in a file named "...

Pankaj, If you want to decorate MachineInstrs then for the end of scope you're not looking at "}" but instead you're looking at _last_ machine instruction in that scope. Now, if you want to find out start and end MachineInstrs for a lexical scope (and corresponding line numbers) then see CodeGen/LexicalScopes pass. It collects lexical scope information and maps MIs to respective lexical scopes. - Devang On Oct 5, 2011, at 3:48 AM, Pankaj Gode wrote: > Hi, > > The link and the information shared was helpful. > >...

...--------------------------------------------- > *From:* Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, March 18, 2023 11:49 PM > *To:* akshay kulkarni <akshay_e4 at hotmail.com>; R help Mailing list > <r-help at r-project.org> > *Subject:* Re: [R] lexical scoping for scripts...... > On 18/03/2023 1:57 p.m., akshay kulkarni wrote: >> Dear members, >>?????????????????????????????? The documentation for source() says: >> >> Input is read and parsed from that file until the end of the file is reached, then the parsed expres...

...anking you, yours sincerely, AKSHAY M KULKARNI ________________________________ From: Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2023 11:49 PM To: akshay kulkarni <akshay_e4 at hotmail.com>; R help Mailing list <r-help at r-project.org> Subject: Re: [R] lexical scoping for scripts...... On 18/03/2023 1:57 p.m., akshay kulkarni wrote: > Dear members, > The documentation for source() says: > > Input is read and parsed from that file until the end of the file is reached, then the parsed expressions are evaluated s...

...Hanking you, Yours sincerely, AKSHAY M KULKARNI ________________________________ From: Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 12:20 AM To: akshay kulkarni <akshay_e4 at hotmail.com>; R help Mailing list <r-help at r-project.org> Subject: Re: [R] lexical scoping for scripts...... On 19/03/2023 2:33 p.m., akshay kulkarni wrote: > Dear Duncun, > thanks for the reply.... > > So when I run a script in the system command line by R CMD BATCH, the > objects created in the script cannot be stored in the workspace...

...p,start=dat$init,data=dat$mixeddat) return(nlme(test,random=b~1)) } produces the error message Error in eval(expr, envir, enclos) : Object "dat" not found. However, if the assignment dat<-v is done globally, then testfunc() produces the desired mixed model analysis. As I understand lexical scoping, the nlme function should take the value of "dat" from the calling environment through its "data = sys.frame(sys.parent ())" argument. Instead it seems to only recognize dat if it is defined globally. Thank you. Jens Praestgaard Human Genome Sciences

I am trying to understand the concept of lexical scope in "An Introduction to R" by the R Core development team. I'd appreciate it if someone would explain why the following example does not work: q <- function(y) {x + y}; w <- function(x){q(x)}; w(2); According to the discussion of Scope on page 46, it seems to me that...

...cn.davis.ca.us> >Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 1:01 AM >To: r-help at r-project.org <r-help at r-project.org>; akshay kulkarni <akshay_e4 at hotmail.com>; Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>; R help Mailing list <r-help at r-project.org> >Subject: Re: [R] lexical scoping for scripts...... > >What do _you_ mean when you use the term "interactive"? Because R distinguishes between executing code in a function and executing code from the global environment, but it does not care whether a person is doing the typing or not. > >I get the fe...

Full_Name: Elliott Forney Version: 2.9.2 OS: Linux, Fedora 10 Submission from: (NULL) (129.82.47.235) The following code creates a list of functions that are lexically closed over a single argument. If a print statement is included then each function in the list evaluates to a different value. If the print statement is not included then each function evaluates to something different, as expected. I am convinced that this behavior is not correct as one woul...

...dnewmil at dcn.davis.ca.us> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 1:01 AM To: r-help at r-project.org <r-help at r-project.org>; akshay kulkarni <akshay_e4 at hotmail.com>; Duncan Murdoch <murdoch.duncan at gmail.com>; R help Mailing list <r-help at r-project.org> Subject: Re: [R] lexical scoping for scripts...... What do _you_ mean when you use the term "interactive"? Because R distinguishes between executing code in a function and executing code from the global environment, but it does not care whether a person is doing the typing or not. I get the feeling that you t...