search for: prvalue

Full_Name: Hin-Tak Leung Version: R 2.2.1 OS: x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu Submission from: (NULL) (131.111.186.92) rbind/cbind is unimplemented for raw (RAWSXP) types. I have a working patch implementing the functionality, to follow. --please do not edit the information below-- Version: platform = x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu arch = x86_64 os = linux-gnu system = x86_64, linux-gnu status = major

...< 3) && (y > 10)) where x and y are of type 'int'. The second statement (&&) requires short-circuit evaluation to bypass the y comparison when the x comparison is false (creates an extra branch vs. the original code). >From N4296 - 4.5 Integral Promotions: "A prvalue of type bool can be converted to a prvalue of type int, with false becoming zero and true becoming one." 5.11 Bitwise AND operator: "The usual arithmetic conversions are performed; the result is the bitwise AND function of the operands." Is the type promotion optional ("can be...

...ue. I don’t think the OpenCL C spec touches the issue of different NULL values for different address spaces, but does explicitly allow different sized pointers for each. I am less clear on what C++ requires, but C++11 4.10 says "A null pointer constant is an integral constant expression (5.19) prvalue of integer type that evaluates to zero or a prvalue of type std::nullptr_t." > >> >> -Matt >> >> >>>> >>>> -Matt >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 1:18 PM...

Hi Jiefei and Duncan, I suspect what is likely happening is that one of ENSURE_NAMEDMAX or MARK_NOT_MUTABLE are being hit for x. These used to set named to 3, but now set it to 7 (ie the previous and current NAMEDMAX value, respectively). Because these are macros rather than C functions, its not easy to figure out why one of them is being invoked from do_isvector (a cursory exploration

Re ENSURE_NAMEDMAX, I am unsure but think this happens in (src/eval.c at 492): static SEXP forcePromise(SEXP e) { ??? if (PRVALUE(e) == R_UnboundValue) { ??? /* ... SNIP ...*/ ??? val = eval(PRCODE(e), PRENV(e)); ??? /* ... SNIP ...*/ ??? SET_PRSEEN(e, 0); ?? ?SET_PRVALUE(e, val); ?? ?ENSURE_NAMEDMAX(val);???????????????? <<<<<<< HERE ?? ?SET_PRENV(e, R_NilValue); ??? } ??? return PRVALUE(e); } as part o...

I noticed something recently that I thought was odd: delayedAssign("x", { Sys.sleep(5); 1 }) x ## Hit Ctrl-C within the first second or 2 gives me: > delayedAssign("x", { Sys.sleep(5); 1 }) > x ## Hit Ctrl-C within the first second or two > x Error: recursive default argument reference > My only problem here is that now I'm stuck---there's no way

...resulting pointer is not correctly aligned) for the referenced type, the behavior is undefined. C++ [expr.reinterpret.cast]p7 (N4527) defines pointer conversions in terms of conversions from void*: An object pointer can be explicitly converted to an object pointer of a different type. When a prvalue v of object pointer type is converted to the object pointer type “pointer to cv T”, the result is static_cast<cv T*>(static_cast<cv void*>(v)). C++ [expr.static.cast]p13 says of conversions from void*: A prvalue of type “pointer to cv1 void” can be converted to a prvalue of typ...

...ctly > aligned) for the referenced type, the behavior is undefined. > > C++ [expr.reinterpret.cast]p7 (N4527) defines pointer conversions in terms > of conversions from void*: > An object pointer can be explicitly converted to an object pointer > of a different type. When a prvalue v of object pointer type is > converted to the object pointer type “pointer to cv T”, the result > is static_cast<cv T*>(static_cast<cv void*>(v)). > > C++ [expr.static.cast]p13 says of conversions from void*: > A prvalue of type “pointer to cv1 void” can be conver...

...hes the issue of different NULL values >> for different address spaces, but does explicitly allow different >> sized pointers for each. I am less clear on what C++ requires, but >> C++11 4.10 says "A null pointer constant is an integral constant >> expression (5.19) prvalue of integer type that evaluates to zero or a >> prvalue of type std::nullptr_t." >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> -Matt >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -Matt >>>>>> >>>>>&...

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > > On 01/07/2015 11:52 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: >> >>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 2:25 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com <mailto:resistor at mac.com>> wrote: >>> >>> I'm not aware of any such restriction, and I know of several LLVM based systems