search for: property2

Displaying 9 results from an estimated 9 matches for "property2".

Did you mean: property
2007 Aug 10
3
Different ferret fields for instances of the same model?
...situation that I want to define the fields to be indexed for every instance of the same model. My requirements are something like this: Suppose we have a model "Product", in "Product" I''ve declared a polymorphic relationship with model "Property1" and "Property2", the following code will show this: class Product < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :property, :polymorphic => true @@ferret_fields = {...} acts_as_ferret({:fields => @@ferret_fields}) end class Property1 < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :product, :as => :property end clas...
2012 May 07
6
[LLVMdev] Metadata for Argument, BasicBlock
...cerning Argument metadata, I am unsure of how to best represent this in LLVM IR. The following seems to be better than putting the metadata somewhere before the first block or anywhere else, but the space in the parameter list looks a bit crowded... declare void test(i32 %param1 !property1 !0, !property2 !1, float* %param2 readonly !property2 !1) Cheers, Ralf
2012 May 06
2
[LLVMdev] Metadata for Argument, BasicBlock
Hi everybody, Is there a clean way to attach metadata nodes to Arguments and/or BasicBlocks? It looks to me like one can directly attach metadata only to instructions. My current workaround is to insert a call to a dummy function that holds metadata for its parent block - pretty ugly, but manageable. The same problem arises when I want to store specific information about the arguments of a
2012 May 06
0
[LLVMdev] Metadata for Argument, BasicBlock
Hi Ralf, > Is there a clean way to attach metadata nodes to Arguments and/or > BasicBlocks? not at the moment. Feel free to work on adding this functionality! > It looks to me like one can directly attach metadata only to instructions. > My current workaround is to insert a call to a dummy function that holds > metadata for its parent block - pretty ugly, but manageable. The
2012 May 15
0
[LLVMdev] Metadata for Argument, BasicBlock
...data, I am unsure of how to best represent this > in LLVM IR. The following seems to be better than putting the metadata > somewhere before the first block or anywhere else, but the space in the > parameter list looks a bit crowded... > > declare void test(i32 %param1 !property1 !0, !property2 !1, > float* %param2 readonly !property2 !1) > > Cheers, > Ralf > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev &...
2018 May 29
2
Can creating new forms of debug info metadata be simplified? [formatting fixed]
...instance via a hash will map nicely to the concept of "composite primary keys" which has a clean solution that I like[1], and could be used as inspiration. Or even something as simple as: template<typename Visitor> void visit(Visitor & v) { v.keys("Property1","Property2","Property3"); } I have never done this, but I expect we could also use constexpr to unroll many things at compile-time. That could be fun! Backward compatibility for serialization is also achievable using a method very similar to Boost serialization[2]: template<typename Visit...
2018 May 29
0
Can creating new forms of debug info metadata be simplified? [formatting fixed]
...will map nicely to the concept of "composite primary keys" which has a clean solution that I like[1], and could be used as inspiration. Or even something as simple as: > > template<typename Visitor> > void visit(Visitor & v) { > v.keys("Property1","Property2","Property3"); > } > > I have never done this, but I expect we could also use constexpr to unroll many things at compile-time. That could be fun! > > Backward compatibility for serialization is also achievable using a method very similar to Boost serialization[2]: &g...
2018 May 29
0
Can creating new forms of debug info metadata be simplified? [formatting fixed]
> On May 29, 2018, at 12:55, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 29, 2018, at 12:28 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> +some of the debug info cabal (& Duncan, as an emeritus member, and person who plumbed a lot of the current debug info syntax support in) >>
2018 May 29
2
Can creating new forms of debug info metadata be simplified? [formatting fixed]
> On May 29, 2018, at 12:28 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > +some of the debug info cabal (& Duncan, as an emeritus member, and person who plumbed a lot of the current debug info syntax support in) > > Visitor seems plausible though I haven't looked at the code in detail to see if it'd work perfectly. > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 7:56