search for: next_step

Hiall, I want to give the action of a form an additional parameters but can''t figure out how to do it. My code looks like this <%= start_form_tag :action => ''create'', next_step => true %> <%= render :partial => ''user_form'' %> <%= render :partial => ''community_form'' %> <%= submit_tag "Optional Next Step" %> <%= end_form_tag %> <%= button_to ''Skip Next Step'',...

...#39;m unsure of how I can structure things to avoid the problem. In a rough pseudo-code, my blocks look like this: entry: store 0, return_path result = invoke func to defer_block unwind landing landing: landingpad store 1, return_path br defer_block defer_block: stuff switch return_path, next_step [ 0, next_step 1, rethrow ] next_step: val = load result ; error here Structually the `next_step` has multiple preceding blocks, one of which doesnt' define `result`. That results in the error. However, based on the switching value `return_path` there is no way we can arrive at `next_...

...ves sometime in future will find the answer I get. Can you use variables in the target of a GoTo() statement? What I am specifically thinking of is this; [from_some_source] exten => s,1,AGI(look_up_stuff.agi,${CALLERID(num)},${EXTEN}) ; this AGI script sets variables: next_context, next_ext, next_step exten => s,n,GoTo(${next_context},${next_ext},${next_step}) Will this work? Does Asterisk evaluate expressions like this, or does it expect literals? -- AJS Note: Originating address only accepts e-mail from list! If replying off- list, change address to asterisk1list at earthshod dot c...

...nd add the null value it's > not. > Won't that work? > Note that the return value of an invoke is defined on the *edge* of the successful return. So you cannot have a path to a use that goes through the exception instead. In your example you have: landing -> defer_block -> next_step. This Is a static property, so this code in invalid even if dynamically this path is never taken. Cheers, Rafael

...gt; > Won't that work? > > > > > Note that the return value of an invoke is defined on the *edge* of > the successful return. So you cannot have a path to a use that goes > through the exception instead. In your example you have: > > landing -> defer_block -> next_step. > > This Is a static property, so this code in invalid even if dynamically > this path is never taken. > > Cheers, > Rafael > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131104/c743f...

But the incoming value from the landing pad will always be null, won't it? If so, just iterate through the predecessors and add the terminator as the incoming value if it's an invoke instruction and add the null value it's not. Won't that work? On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:22 AM, edA-qa mort-ora-y <eda-qa at disemia.com>wrote: > On 03/11/13 12:16, Henrique Santos wrote:

On 03/11/13 12:16, Henrique Santos wrote: > You could try placing a phi node at "defer_block" with incoming value > "result" > when the incoming block is "entry", and do the same for "null" and > "landing". > Then, instead of loading "result", you load the value given by the newly > created phi. That seems like the