search for: lexically

Hi, I would like to implement a fix to how LLVM handles/creates debug info for entities declared inside a basic block. Below you will find 5 parts: 1. Motivation for this fix. 2. Background explaining the cases that need to be fixed. 3. An example for each case. 4. Proposal on how to represent each case in dwarf. 5. Secondary (workaround) proposal which might be

...n 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 documentation of how this works for puppet. I understand that a lexically-scoped puppet config would need to use parameterized classes. What I''m not clear on is how facts would be scoped. Are they some top-level that needs to be passed into nodes? Are they present in a node''s scope? What if it inherits? Do I need to pass these facts in as parameters...

...Alexander Musman (alexander.musman at gmail.com) Cc: LLVM Dev Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] Proposal for ""llvm.mem.vectorize.safelen" Sorry for coming to the discussion so late. I have a couple of questions/comments: - I'm no openMP expert but I don't understand the relevance of lexically forward or backward dependence with respect to the safelen() metadata. I would be surprised if the openMP spec based safelen() upon lexical ordering for the reasons that you are running up against. - I agree with Hal's request that we don't use the name 'safelen'. I can think of...

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

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 28,...

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

...> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:32:25 PM > Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] Proposal for ""llvm.mem.vectorize.safelen" > > 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. What was the outcome of this? Thanks again, Hal > > - Arch > > -----Original Messag...

Hi,   The link and the information shared was helpful.   I will make my problem definition more clear. While I am "asm printing" target code, I also want to emit scope related information. Scope related information includes, - for each scope, start line, end line, start column, end column and - scope heirarchy. As scope is delimited by "{" and "}" (for an input

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 "&qu...

On 19/03/2023 2:55 p.m., akshay kulkarni wrote: > Dear Duncun, > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?What if there is no interactive "session" > running? I will be running my scripts automatically from crontab in Linux. I was talking about the session that is created for the duration of the BATCH run, not some other session that may be running in another process. Sorry for the

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 sequentially in the chosen environment. > > What does this mean? I presume that any objects that are CREATED by the script

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

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 ,right? > If yes, how to save them? Moreover, the only way to save the objects > CREATED from the script permanently is

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 ,right? If yes, how to save them? Moreover, the only way to save the objects CREATED from the script permanently is to save them to the disk, right? THanking you, yours sincerely, AKSHAY M KULKARNI

Dear Duncun, What if there is no interactive "session" running? I will be running my scripts automatically from crontab in Linux. THanking 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

I am running into problems calling the library function nlme from within another function. Basically,the following function (with v a list containing data and initialization values) > testfunc function(dat=v) { test<-nlsList(result~a+(b-a)/(1+(conc/(c+z*cdiff))^d) |rep,start=dat$init,data=dat$mixeddat) return(nlme(test,random=b~1)) } produces the error message Error in eval(expr, envir,

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 R will interpret the free variable x in q as the

Again, the answer is "interactivity does not matter". On March 19, 2023 12:54:28 PM PDT, akshay kulkarni <akshay_e4 at hotmail.com> wrote: >Dear Jeff, > I will not be running R command in the shell prompt. So there is no banner, no > prompt. Just running "myscript.R" from the shell prompt. or from crontab in Linux. I think you get the

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 would no...

Dear Jeff, I will not be running R command in the shell prompt. So there is no banner, no > prompt. Just running "myscript.R" from the shell prompt. or from crontab in Linux. I think you get the context..... thanking you, yours sincerely AKSHAY M KULKARNI ________________________________ From: Jeff Newmiller <jdnewmil at dcn.davis.ca.us> Sent: Monday, March