search for: reified

...e to have the same functionality available for live processes and core dumps, since that is a better user experience. In the following weeks, we'll be submitting patches to reify some of the information available in the API and error reports. Please comment on information you'd like to see reified too. Thank you, Filipe

In some language implementations, such as the Glasgow Haskell Compiler (GHC) and the reference implementation of Go, a thread’s stack is allocated as a data structure on the garbage-collected heap.  The garbage collector is free to move this data structure whenever it is invoked. Currently, GHC’s LLVM backend does not use the C stack.  However, there have been discussions about whether using the

I'm not familiar with PNaCl but, FWIW, I'd say the three main advancements the CLR made over the JVM are: . Structs (aka value types). . Reified generics. http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/64031/designandimplementationofgenerics.p df . Tail call elimination. http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/69132/babel01.pdf Structs give you more freedom around memory representation (e.g. the CLR can represent an array of pairs of floats and i...

I think this is fine, except that it stops at the point where things actually start to get interesting and tricky. How will you actually handle the flow of values from the callbr into the error blocks? A callbr can specify requirements on where its outputs live. So, what if two callbr, in different branches of code, specify _different_ constraints for the same output, and list the same block as a

I''m using paper_trail gem in ruby. The "versions" table table has created.From that cannot able to access various methods as (reify,originator, ...etc..,) in rails application. I Migrated the column for these methods .Also addes these specifications in models. Why i can''t get trouble here. Also how to pass these methods. -- You received this message because you are

On Nov 22, 2004, at 10:00 AM, Vikram S. Adve wrote: > I have not seen a discussion of this and none of our current front-ends > need it. A straightforward way to add support for this would be: > > (a) Lower nested procedures into ordinary top-level functions in LLVM, > with name-mangling to enforce scopes for each name. > > (b) I assume you don't want to use a display (a

Hi all, A while ago there was a discussion on changing the current "set of trees" representation of TBAA metadata to be more expressive, prompted by the need to support C structs. Dan Gohman also talked about the issue here: http://llvm.org/devmtg/2012-11/Gohman-AliasAnalysis.pdf. It was suggested that the trees be replaced by a type DAG then. While working on this compiler

On Sat, 19 May 2007, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> * It seems that a C-call like printf("---\n") is transformed to puts >> ("---") in the LLVM IR instead of keeping it a printf. What are the >> circumstances in which this happens? Do other similar conversions >> occur? Can this be turned off (lower optimisation level?)? Manually >> replacing the

On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: >On Sun, 20 May 2007, Bram Adams wrote: >> On a related note: while using llvmc I have some test cases where the >> following error now pops up on Linux X86 (not on OSX): >> >> <premain>: CommandLine Error: Argument 'debug' defined more than once! >> llvmc:

Hello, Bram > * It seems that a C-call like printf("---\n") is transformed to puts > ("---") in the LLVM IR instead of keeping it a printf. What are the > circumstances in which this happens? Do other similar conversions > occur? Can this be turned off (lower optimisation level?)? Manually > replacing the puts-calls by a printf-call is not

Hi, Op 19-mei-07, om 00:39 heeft Chris Lattner het volgende geschreven: > Anton is right. You should be able to use -fno-builtins to disable > this. Thanks, that did the trick. Some final remarks (my app works again :-)): * llvm.va_start and similar intrinsics now have an i8* arg instead of an sbyte** * For some reason the Arguments of a Function are now circularly linked,

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 1:44 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 1:29 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> > wrote: > >> I think this is fine, except that it stops at the point where things >> actually start to get interesting and tricky. >> >> How will you actually handle the flow of values from the callbr

Hi folks, I'm trying to figure out the return address of a function in an LLVM pass, i.e., the byte address right after the end of the call instruction (so that I can initialize a global variable with the return address of a function for a sanity check). Due to some other constraints, I have to run this pass in somewhere in the midend. At a high level, I want to find the address after a call

Hello, This email picks up the thread that to my knowledge was last discussed here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-July/088103.html In brief, infinite loops containing no side effects produce undefined behavior in C++ (and C in some cases), however in other languages, they have fully defined behavior. LLVM's optimizer currently assumes that infinite loops eventually terminate

I''m working my way through the book Agile Web Development with Rails, and I am in the section where the book has me creating a display_cart method and the associated view. When I copied the code from the book into the view, it threw this error. If anyone could give me some hints where I should be looking I''d appreciate it. NoMethodError in Store#display_cart Showing

Hi Vedant, > I enjoyed reading through your EuroLLVM slides and OOPSLA paper. > Detecting the creation of contract-violating pointers is an > interesting idea, and your paper demonstrates that the checking can > be comprehensive and effective. Glad you enjoyed them. :-) > However, I have concerns about the quality of diagnostics, the > complexity of the driver, and about

[Adding the correct cfe-dev mailing list address.] On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:06 AM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Now that ASM goto support has landed, Nick Desaulniers and I wrote up a > document describing how to expand clang's implementation of ASM goto to > support output constraints. The work *should* be straight-forward, but as > always will need to