search for: subobject

Hi! I have another question. If ctor was called from other ctor then additional parameter must be equal 0 otherwise it`s equal 1. How can I determine who call constructor? - Dmitry.

...gt; I have another question. > If ctor was called from other ctor then additional parameter must be > equal 0 otherwise it`s equal 1. The rule isn't "Is this constructor being called from another constructor?", it's "Is this constructor being used to initialize a base subobject?". That's equivalent to the Itanium ABI's concept of a constructor variant. EmitCXXConstructorCall gets this information already. John.

...ULL ! = __dynamic_cast(ptr,<br> &_ZTI1B, // typeinfo of B, the static type of ptr.<br> &_ZTI1A, // typeinfo of A, the destination type.<br> hint) // a static hint about the location of the source subobject w.r.t the complete object.</font><br> <br>If the above conditions can be proven to be true, then an equivalent expression is:<br><font face="Default Monospace,Courier New,Courier,monospace"> (destType == dynamicType) where: std::typeinfo *de...

Hi all, I'm testing the use of the hdf5 R library under Windows XP. With some simple example (an R list with several subobjects as showed in the examples in the library) the library exports and imports .hdf files adequately. However, if I try to open the exported file with another program (HDFView 2.5) I receive the message that the file is an unsupported format. HDFView 2.5 does not seems to have any problem with another...

On Oct 15, 2008, at 6:58 AM, Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: >> Yes, but why do you think they should get a different address? I can >> understand that it is surprising that they do, but determining >> whether >> this is legal or not requires reading the language standard. >> Hopefully >> a language lawyer can chime in and say whether this transform is >>

...that an ambiguous or > inaccessible base class makes the program ill-formed, so we're not > allowed to reject such a program. > I see. As far as I understand, this sentence was removed: Requires: enable_shared_from_this<T> shall be an accessible base class of T. *this shall be a subobject of an object t of type T. There shall be at least one shared_ptr instance p that owns &t. As far as I read it, this required enable_shared_from_this to be public accessible. Do you know (or someone else), why it was removed? I find it a little, umm..., inconvenient, that the compiler happily...

On 15.10.2008, at 16.43, Duncan Sands wrote: >> True, but note that it is the address of a variable that is used, not >> the value. > > Yes, but why do you think they should get a different address? I can > understand that it is surprising that they do, but determining whether > this is legal or not requires reading the language standard. > Hopefully > a language

Hello Everyone, I am working on a control collection for javascript/Ajax.Net. I am stuck on the class inheritance aspects of the prototype library. If someone could point me to an example it would be a great help. I have looked through the controls.js of the scriptaculous library and found something like the below code, but everytime I ran it I would get a constructor error. Thanks for any help;

...." > +// > +// This is pretty permissive. Indeed :-/ > +// It's also partly due to C11 6.5.9p6: > +// "Two pointers compare equal if and only if both are null pointers, both are > +// pointers to the same object (including a pointer to an object and a > +// subobject at its beginning) or function, both are pointers to one past the > +// last element of the same array object, or one is a pointer to one past the > +// end of one array object and the other is a pointer to the start of a > +// different array object that happens to immediately fol...

getInitializer returns the complete initializer of the global. My globals are complex nested structs, from which I want to extract e.g. one double datafield. Example: >From a struct Stuct having double,array(3xint),float fields, I could extract the second int value using the index sequence 0,1,1 with getGetElementPtr. This gives me a constantPointer, but I would need to get a constInt...

...I have worked with recently. Similarly, when I derive an object from another, I currently have to remember the hierarchy. I am working mostly from a single large frame from which I extract various pieces. I modify these pieces to attempt an analysis or another but I must track both the objects and subobjects and the operations that happened along the way. I envison something like the call object in the model objects. I suspect adding to each object its ancestry would take up a fair amount of space but I have no real sense of the memory requirements of such an addition. The idea of a comment space ma...

...tion unit. 2 A name is said to have linkage when it might denote the same object, reference, function, type, template, namespace or value as a name introduced by a declaration in another scope: to be pedantically clear, entity includes objects: 3 An entity is a value, object, subobject, base class subobject, array element, variable, function, instance of a function, enumerator, type, class member, template, or namespace. Now, you ask, how can we be sure these have no linkage across translation units, because: 3 A name having namespace scope (_basic.scope.namespace_)...

.../signed int` with the actual type needed. > * *[X|_|X] declare in actual class* - as opposed to one of the base classes. True, but I am curious to see how you can avoid doing this in the base. The whole point of doing this bit-field thing is to save space by reusing the padding after the base subobject. Maybe with an aligned char array reinterpret_cast'ed by the derived classes as mentioned before? The trick is that we don't want to repeat the members from the base classes. Also we have to avoid UB. > * *[_|_|X] declare (a bitfield) in a single line* - as opposed to the need to de...

...> >> Indeed :-/ >> >>> +// It's also partly due to C11 6.5.9p6: >>> +// "Two pointers compare equal if and only if both are null pointers, both are >>> +// pointers to the same object (including a pointer to an object and a >>> +// subobject at its beginning) or function, both are pointers to one past the >>> +// last element of the same array object, or one is a pointer to one past the >>> +// end of one array object and the other is a pointer to the start of a >>> +// different array object that ha...

...; >>>>> +// It's also partly due to C11 6.5.9p6: >>>>> +// "Two pointers compare equal if and only if both are null pointers, both are >>>>> +// pointers to the same object (including a pointer to an object and a >>>>> +// subobject at its beginning) or function, both are pointers to one past the >>>>> +// last element of the same array object, or one is a pointer to one past the >>>>> +// end of one array object and the other is a pointer to the start of a >>>>> +// differ...

I’m checking aliasing of two pointers: %GEP1 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.s, %struct.s* %0, i64 0, i32 1, i64 %indvars.iv41, i64 %indvars.iv39 %GEP2 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.s, %struct.s* %0, i64 0, i32 16 The result I got is “PartialAlias” because the indices of the GEP1 are variable. That seems like a bug. PartialAlias should only be returned when we can prove a partial

...ssary. Yes, that would be sufficient. > Specifically, in my case above, > having an anchor method for an abstract class seems wrong, because abstract > classes are never instantiated. Well they are, though indirectly - when you construct a derived object you must also construct the base subobject - and initialize the vtable pointer to point to the base's vtable (which is then replaced with the derived vtable). You should be able to verify/test this. > The policy text needs a more detailed > description, telling when an (unwanted) vtable is generated. The policy is pretty simple...

...of “i” and “m” are runtime variables. >> >> The problem is, IIRC, it is not undefined behavior to access one structure field by over-indexing an earlier array member. C++ has rules for "safely-derived pointers", and I think they include all pointer arithmetic on addresses from subobjects. If array access is just pointer arithmetic, I'm not sure that helps you as much as you'd like. cc'ing Richard to correct me if necessary. >> > > It is actually undefined behavior. This is explicitly called out in Annex J.2: "An array subscript is out of range, even if...

Hello, David > > (My own position is that different objects should have guaranteed > different addresses. To alias them, a code generator must prove that > it wouldn't change observable behavior.) However, it's pretty common linker optimization to merge constant strings / small literal values. So, even if compiler itself won't merge them, they will be emitted into

On 3/11/2013 1:41 PM, Manman Ren wrote: > > | x | > extends > | z | > super-type > | y | What does this mean? "The type of z extends the type of x, and the type of z is a super-type of y"? -Krzysztof -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation