search for: subobjects

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.

On Mar 5, 2012, at 12:40 AM, r4start wrote: > 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

...Frontend would place on the <font face="Default Monospace,Courier New,Courier,monospace">__dynamic_cast</font> call. The presence of the attribute implies that the static type (B in our example) is a public base class and never a private base class (in case there are multiple subobjects of the static_type inside the complete object) of the destination type (A in our example). Hence, if the attribute gets deleted by some pass, our transformation will simply do nothing for that <font face="Default Monospace,Courier New,Courier,monospace">__dynamic_cast</font> c...

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 h...

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 >>

Am 29.08.19 um 12:07 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 10:15, Christian Schneider > <cschneider at radiodata.biz> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> I just discovered, that, when using enable_shared_from_this and >> inheriting it privately, this fails at runtime. >> I made a small example: >> >> #include <memory> >> #include

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;

Apologies if this has come up before. I couldn't find any previous discussion, but I did find this commit. I was wondering why LLVM cannot optimize this code (which GCC does optimize): int f(int *p) { int x; return p == &x; } it would seem that this must always return 0. (This occurs as a self-assignment check in the code I was looking at; I was hoping we could fold that check away.)

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 may...

On Oct 15, 2008, at 8:28 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > 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

Hi, Do you have some code we can look at (even if it is in a nasty unpolished state, just mark it WIP and put it on Phab) ? It is hard to evaluate an alternative without the code. That said I think that the table is a little bit one-sided. I have added some inline comments. On 30/12/2019 11:53, Ehud Katz wrote: > The solution in Clang is still very complicated and error prone. A lot of

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: >> I was wondering why LLVM cannot optimize this code (which GCC does optimize): >> >> int f(int *p) { int x; return p == &x; } >> >> it would seem that this must always return 0. (This

I threw together a patch which implements this (attached.) If we decide that this is actually a legal transform, I'm happy to post this for review. In addition to the version proposed here, I also implemented a case where a trivially escaped alloca's address is not equal to any other value. I believe both are valid, but we should confirm. Philip On 09/24/2015 02:34 PM, Aaron

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

(+Chris, since I assume he wrote this policy - and, as I said in my previous email, I wouldn't mind seeing some justification or just seeing the rule go away & drop the anchors I added previously (or, if we're going to keep it, we could add more anchors & actually get to the point where we're -Wweak-vtable clean & enable that warning)) On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:44 PM,

...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