search for: nontermination

Dear all, I have an implementation of streams in R. The current implementation of delay() and force() is inspired from the LISP implementation found in Part VI "Languages for AI problem solving" of "Artificial Intelligence" by G. Luger. I have tested it with the Fibonacci example in the same book (see examples below). It works but I do run into a problem when I try to

# xl cpupool-create ''name="pool2" sched="credit2"'' command line:2: config parsing error near `sched'': syntax error, unexpected IDENT, expecting NEWLINE or '';'' Failed to parse config file: Invalid argument *** glibc detected *** xl: free(): invalid pointer: 0x0000000001a79a10 *** Segmentation fault (core dumped) Looking at the code

...t. > > this sounds like a manifestation of bug 965, see http://llvm.org/PR965 ah, you are quite right! I'd searched "recursion" to look for bugs, but the problem (as described in #965) is more general than that. (I'm quite familiar with Haskell, in which termination vs. nontermination is discussed much more than it is in C.) The optimization and the "willreturn" suggestion make sense to me. (Is it worth commenting on the bug-report? I guess not, since I don't actually have anything to add: it's already a clear bug with a clear solution: though perhaps ha...

Hi I had observed the following problem in R (also C, Matlab, and Python). sprintf('%1.2g\n', 3.15) give 3.1 instead of 3.2 whereas an input of 3.75 gives 3.8. Java's System.out.printf is ok though. > round(3.75,1) [1] 3.8 > round(3.15,1) [1] 3.1 Similar outcome with sprintf in R. However, the right answer should be 3.2 Regards Teckpor [[alternative HTML version

Hi Isaac, > For fun, I made a recursive function, but LLVM optimized it wrong (if > I'm understanding C standards correctly). > > "void f() { f(); }"[see llvm-code in footnote 1] > was optimized to be equivalent to "void f() {}"[also 1]. I believe it > should either be equivalent in effect to "void f() { while(1){} }"[2], > which produces an

Hi These are: ======================== llvm[2]: Linking Release Object Library LLVMbzip2.o gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/homes/myuser/LLVM/llvmobj/lib/Support/bzip2' gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/homes/myuser/LLVM/llvmobj/lib/Support' gmake[1]: Entering directory `/homes/myuser/LLVM/llvmobj/utils' gmake[2]: Entering directory `/homes/myuser/LLVM/llvmobj/utils/Burg' llvm[2]:

I wrote: > Also I wrote: > > However, xl fails on config files which are missing the final > > newline. This should be fixed for 4.2. > > My patch for this didn''t make it into 4.2 RC4. Should this go into 4.2.0 or be held for 4.2.1 (or is it not 4.2.x material at all) ? Ian. From: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> Subject: [PATCH] libxl: Tolerate xl

I found 179 more *.{c,cpp,h} files with tabs. Unfortunately, the tabs stops used vary so blindly expanding them messes up alignment in many cases :( Index: examples/BFtoLLVM/BFtoLLVM.cpp Index: include/llvm/AbstractTypeUser.h Index: include/llvm/GlobalVariable.h Index: include/llvm/InstrTypes.h Index: include/llvm/IntrinsicInst.h Index: include/llvm/ADT/PostOrderIterator.h Index:

I tried the LLVM demo with unmodified settings http://llvm.org/demo/index.cgi (same results from llvm 2.6 with clang, `clang-cc -emit-llvm -O2 test.c`, on my Linux x86_64) For fun, I made a recursive function, but LLVM optimized it wrong (if I'm understanding C standards correctly). "void f() { f(); }"[see llvm-code in footnote 1] was optimized to be equivalent to "void f()

Hi all, first up, big thanks to Dave for doing the hard work of porting Lucene. I have come to love Lucene through my Java work and was extremely pleased to find the Ferret project for Ruby. Now, I am tinkering with building the C extension using Visual Studio 2005. So far, I have had some success in getting something built and working in my Rails app (diffs attached). I am also encountering a

Hi Stepan, Sorry for the delay. It's great that you are working on MergeFunctions as well and I agree, we should definitely try to combine our efforts to improve MergeFunctions. Just to give you some context, the pass (with the similar function merging patch) is already being used in a production setting. From my point of view, it would be better if we focus on improving its capability

Hello Sean and Tobias, Sean, Thank you. Could you describe Nick's ideas in few words or give me links to your discussion, so I could adapt my ideas to it. Tobias, Your patch fails on several modules in my benchmark (73 of ~1800 tests). I have sent one as attachment. See statistics files for more details, all the .ll files you could simply find in test-suite object directory (after