search for: statemente

I searched the archives and found a thread about it, but I didn''t understand: are prepared statement used by ActiveRecord on those databases that could handle them (Postgresql, Mysql, Oracle etc)? In case they are not used, are they planned? Is there a roadmap about Rails I can find somewhere?

Those rules only apply to if and switch statements. (Yes, this is insane, but true.) The entire section you are quoting from, 6.4, is titled "Selection statements [stmt.select]", which specifically covers these two cases. A for is an iteration statement, not a selection statement. So, if you read 6.5.3p1 (which is actually about for statements) it states that a for loop is rewritten

Hi Paul, Regarding the "No Touchie!" constraint idea for asm statements: would this be a new qualifier (like volatile) that could be applied to the asm statement? Since the constraint is not necessarily associated with an input or output operand, it seems that introducing the constraint via the qualifier field might work. All, The volatile qualifier on an asm statement already

The team I am working with is using asm statements containing label definitions as a way of instrumentation so that when an application is loaded into their debug and test framework, the labels will cause breakpoints to be set at strategic points where they can query the state of the processor that the application is running on. ~ Todd From: Eli Friedman [mailto:efriedma at quicinc.com] Sent:

Suppose a programmer wants to inject their own global label definition into the body of a function with some guarantee that it will not be removed by the compiler. One way to do this is to define a global label with an asm statement knowing that the asm statement will not be invoked until after the compiler's optimization passes have run, but the following case demonstrates that a label

I mean an llvm Pass that transforms switch statements into if statements. For example, if I have code with switch statements then running the pass will convert all switches to ifs in the bytecode. George On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "George Baah" <georgebaah at gmail.com> > >

I have a warning when building with MSVC2k5, a benign warning, but I am trying to get rid of them. ..\..\..\..\trunk\lib\Transforms\Utils\AddrModeMatcher.cpp(208) : warning C4334: '<<' : result of 32-bit shift implicitly converted to 64 bits (was 64-bit shift intended?) The line of code is: Scale = 1 << Scale; Where Scale is an int64_t, however, 1 is an int32_t (since

I have a warning when building with MSVC2k5, a benign warning, but I am trying to get rid of them. ..\..\..\..\trunk\lib\Transforms\Utils\AddrModeMatcher.cpp(208) : warning C4334: '<<' : result of 32-bit shift implicitly converted to 64 bits (was 64-bit shift intended?) The line of code is: Scale = 1 << Scale; Where Scale is an int64_t, however, 1 is an int32_t (since

Hi, I am writing a plugin to get information about the OpenMP constructs from the AST. I am basically writing a “RecursiveASTVisitor” and I am trying to find the OpenMP statement and get information like filename and line of code. When I am visiting recursively each statement I have my own switch on the “StmtClass” and for now I am focusing on “OMPParallelForDirectiveClass”. In my understanding,

Jay Freeman (saurik) wrote: > Those rules only apply to if and switch statements. (Yes, this is insane, > but true.) The entire section you are quoting from, 6.4, is titled > "Selection statements [stmt.select]", which specifically covers these two > cases. A for is an iteration statement, not a selection statement. > See 6.4p2: "The rules for conditions apply

DISCLAIMER: I am SSA, LLVM and compiler ignorant, so take the following for what it is worth. What about logically breaking a (complex) SEH method into two logical methods, as per this pseudo-code as an example: ----------------------- foo(parameter-list) { leading-statements; try { try-statements; } catch(Execption0 ex0) { catch-0-statements; } . catch(ExceptionN exN) {

Anyone have any idea how to interpret this? I''ve been at it for an hour and I''m not getting anywhere. Doesn''t seem to be any other instances of this online either. User: root OS: CentOS 5.4 (up to date as of 20100610 06:30) Rails -v: 2.3.8 Gem -v: 1.3.6 <code> # gem update Updating installed gems Updating sqlite3-ruby Building native extensions. This could

Did this conversation reach a conclusion? My ad hoc tally says that a slight majority of the responders preferred to fully brace statements and no one wanted to totally eliminate braces. The technical arguments for fully braced statements were 1) it's considered a slightly safer coding style and 2) commit diffs with fully braced statements may be slightly more to the point. I didn't

Hello all, my first project is on it''s way, and I am loving it! But, and that''s a big BUT: Active Record does not use prepared statements! How is that? Everybody is bragging about performance and the most obvious tuning measure is missing. Ok, I don''t know, if MySQL can even do them as I am using Postgres, but still. I started looking at the code and it is not

Hi All, Is there a pass in llvm that converts switch statements to if statements? George -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130506/f06741c4/attachment.html>

Hi guys. I''m using a postgreSQL with multiple schemas. To change between schemas I use the ''SET schema TO ...'' statement. That works ok in rails 3.0. Rails 3.1 uses prepared statements and does not take into account the ''schema_search_path''. This is a big problem because the statement is prepared once and then the same prepared statement is executed

There is also the LowerSwitch pass that converts switch instructions to a sequence of branches. On May 6, 2013, at 1:24 PM, George Baah <georgebaah at gmail.com> wrote: > I mean an llvm Pass that transforms switch statements into if statements. For example, if I have code with switch statements then running the pass will convert all switches to ifs in the bytecode. > > George

On 4/26/11 10:32 PM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > In general, this is not possible. Consider, for example, the fact that various optimization passes may reorder the code, including such things as hoisting computations outside of the loop, and enclosing loops, scheduling those instructions before others that did not originate from source lines within the loop, etc. That's not to mention things like

Hi everyone! May I request again for your help? I need to make some codes using if else statements... Can I do an "if-else statement" inside an "if-else statement"? Is this the correct form of writing it? Thank you.=) Example: for (v in 1:6) { for (i in 2:200) { if (v==1) (if max(x*v-y*v)>1 break()) if (v==2) (if max(x*v-y*v)>1.8 break()) if (v==3) (if

----- Original Message ----- > From: "George Baah" <georgebaah at gmail.com> > To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 3:09:33 PM > Subject: [LLVMdev] convert switch stmts to If statements > > > > > Hi All, Is there a pass in llvm that converts switch statements to if > statements?