search for: medhi

...e are other columns of numeric data): > xy x y 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 5 2 2 6 2 2 7 2 2 8 2 2 > where x is a column of factors, and y is a column of factors, that have different levels, e.g., > x [1] low low low low hi hi hi hi Levels: low hi > y [1] med med med med medhi medhi medhi medhi Levels: med medhi How do I get the columns to use the combined levels c("low","med","medhi","high") so that the data frame is actually: > xy x y 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 2 5 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 3 8 4 3 > I'm sure there's a way t...

Howdy all, I've been playing around with programs that use the C11 fenv.h. It seems that, currently, the LLVM compiler does not regard to the exception-flag side-effects of floating point operations? When run on my macbook, the example code on http://en.cppreference.com/w/c/numeric/fenv/FE_exceptions does not print all the expected exceptions. Other examples: void foo() {

> On Jan 17, 2017, at 3:01 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > > - As Medhi says, according to surveys and discussions in forums like the LLVM Dev Meeting BoF, most people who care are in favor of mono-repo. > > From the online surveys, I think the split was roughly 50:50. > > I don’t know on what data you’re basis this on. I looked very closely and here ar...

...0 years). > > The download size of a mono-repo is fine for anyone who would be checking out LLVM today. compiler-rt and libc++ are both useful without any of the rest of LLVM and contributors to libc++ rarely check out anything more than libc++ (perhaps libc++abi) today. > >> - As Medhi says, according to surveys and discussions in forums like the LLVM Dev Meeting BoF, most people who care are in favor of mono-repo. > > From the online surveys, I think the split was roughly 50:50. I don’t know on what data you’re basis this on. I looked very closely and here are two questi...

Hi Medhi, > On Dec 11, 2015, at 6:18 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Side note: shouldn’t RFCs rather go to llvm-dev? You’re right! I could have sworn I have sent it to llvm-dev! Moving it now. > >> On Dec 11, 2015, at 5:44 PM, Quentin Colomb...

Hi Medhi, Thanks for you reply. Here is the full output of -print-after-all [1] and just the module itself after my pass[2]. I've looked over the IR, but I can't see anything obviously wrong. I'm not sure what you meant by: > You may want to try to add it at the end of the pipeline My...

...way to go. For a few reasons: - Monorepo is the “natural” way to use git. Submodules are possible to use, but add significant complexity. - The download size of a mono-repo is manageable, and seems scalable for a project the size of LLVM (including reasonable growth over the next 10 years). - As Medhi says, according to surveys and discussions in forums like the LLVM Dev Meeting BoF, most people who care are in favor of mono-repo. - The people most impacted by mono-repo are those who want to build just compiler-rt. We want these people to be happy, but they are very few in number, and their ben...

.../component/modularity/reusability/… > > Writing the fastest linker possible is nice goal, I regret that a LLVM > subproject is putting this goal above layering/component/modularity/reusability/… > though. > I've never mentioned that creating the fastest linker is the only goal. Medhi, please tell how you would *actually* layer linkers with fine-grained components. You are just saying that the current LLD is worse than an imaginary super-beautiful linker. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/...

...l, I regret that a LLVM subproject is putting this goal above layering/component/modularity/reusability/… though. > > I've never mentioned that creating the fastest linker is the only goal. I believe this has clearly been put *ahead* the other design aspects I mentioned, isn’t it? > Medhi, please tell how you would *actually* layer linkers with fine-grained components. That’s not a bait I’m gonna bite. > You are just saying that the current LLD is worse than an imaginary super-beautiful linker. Using superlative and trying to qualify what I’m writing with "imaginary supe...

...tting this goal above layering/component/modularity/reusability/… >> though. >> > > I've never mentioned that creating the fastest linker is the only goal. > > > I believe this has clearly been put *ahead* the other design aspects I > mentioned, isn’t it? > > Medhi, please tell how you would *actually* layer linkers with > fine-grained components. > > > That’s not a bait I’m gonna bite. > That's not a bait... I guess you are proposing a different architecture, so you need to explain it. > You are just saying that the current LLD is wor...

...project is putting this goal above layering/component/modularity/reusability/… though. >> >> I've never mentioned that creating the fastest linker is the only goal. > > I believe this has clearly been put *ahead* the other design aspects I mentioned, isn’t it? > >> Medhi, please tell how you would *actually* layer linkers with fine-grained components. > > That’s not a bait I’m gonna bite. > > That's not a bait... I guess you are proposing a different architecture, so you need to explain it. That’s a bait in the sense that I’m not having two month...

...cularly > painful. It also randomly corrupts its database occasionally, just for > the giggles I assume. > I get hit by that every so often :-(. As others have mentioned, the monotonically incrementing ids are extremely useful, particularly when bisecting across clang/llvm. I think that Medhi's suggestion may be a viable solution. As long as a mechanism for bisecting across the repositories is worked out, definitely a +1 from me. > Tim. > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm....

.../modularity/reusability/… >>> though. >>> >> >> I've never mentioned that creating the fastest linker is the only goal. >> >> >> I believe this has clearly been put *ahead* the other design aspects I >> mentioned, isn’t it? >> >> Medhi, please tell how you would *actually* layer linkers with >> fine-grained components. >> >> >> That’s not a bait I’m gonna bite. >> > > That's not a bait... I guess you are proposing a different architecture, > so you need to explain it. > > > That...

...goal above layering/component/modularity/reusability/… though. >>> >>> I've never mentioned that creating the fastest linker is the only goal. >> >> I believe this has clearly been put *ahead* the other design aspects I mentioned, isn’t it? >> >>> Medhi, please tell how you would *actually* layer linkers with fine-grained components. >> >> That’s not a bait I’m gonna bite. >> >> That's not a bait... I guess you are proposing a different architecture, so you need to explain it. > > That’s a bait in the sense tha...

...edeba0987d0d1fdc9c8dc53d) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix On some Ubuntu-like distribution. I also ran with ASAN once and it found a bunch of leaks in bin/tco. Best, -- Mehdi On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 4:36 AM Richard Barton <Richard.Barton at arm.com> wrote: > Hi Medhi > > > > Definitely not expected, the tests should all pass. > > > > As well as what David asked, the verbose output from lit would be helpful > for debugging too. > > > > Thanks for giving it a try. > > Rich > > > > *From:* David Truby <Da...

On 31 May 2016 at 21:28, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > Ideally, I'd prefer the cross-repository to be handled with an extra layer, in a way similar as described in: https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/user-submodules.htm (somehow conceptually similar to Android manifests XML files). > It would be easy to have tooling/scripts for llvm that would

hello all, I have a data frame and I want to create a column which assigns a letter based upon the value in another column. The data column has velocities ranging from 0 to 1000. So for example, for velocities between 0 and 300 I'd like to assign the letter "A" in the new column, for 300-600, "B" and so on and so forth. How would I do this? Thank you very much! Mehdi

Pete - That patch sounds great! Philip, Hal, Medhi, Gerolf - Thanks very much for the feedback. So how about this: (1) We drop llvm.memcpy's alignment argument and use Pete's alignment-via-metadata patch (whatever version of it passes review). (2) llvm.memcpy retains its current semantics, but we teach clang, SimplifyLibCalls, etc. to add...

Hello, I'm writing an LTO pass and I'd like to be able to duplicate a function (with debugging info). I'm trying to accomplish this with CloneFunction but it's leading to a seg fault in ld. I've whittled down my problem so that it occurs in this small pass [1]. If I run this pass with opt, I get the expected result (i.e. a valid program that calls main twice). If I run

Hi Mehdi, I can't replicate those failures at my end, could you let me know what OS, compiler and CMake flags you're using so I can try and reproduce? Thanks! David Truby ________________________________ From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Sent: 07 April 2020 06:44 To: Richard Barton