search for: twined

I'm attempting to do some amount of mass migration from const std::string& (& const char*) to StringRef. In doing so I stumbled across the fact that while StringRef has no op+ to speak of (well, it has += and I added a manual StringRef+std::string and std::string+StringRef for now - though I'm thinking perhaps they can be skipped in favor of Twine operations), Twine does provide a

I'm looking at the documentation on Twine at http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#llvm-adt-twine-h and it gives example code: void foo(const Twine &T); ... StringRef X = ... unsigned i = ... foo(X + "." + Twine(i)); How exactly does that last line work? Since addition is left associative, I would expect it to be parsed as (X + ".") ... so it's trying to add

On Jul 18, 2011, at 12:38 PM, David Blaikie wrote: > I'm attempting to do some amount of mass migration from const std::string& (& const char*) to StringRef. Great! > In doing so I stumbled across the fact that while StringRef has no op+ to speak of (well, it has += and I added a manual StringRef+std::string and std::string+StringRef for now - though I'm thinking perhaps

I need to generate variables like status1, status2, status3, ...... request1, request2, request3, ...... this is my code, other unrelated detail are eliminated. static int varNum; static const char *getVarNum() { ++varNum; std::stringstream ss; ss << varNum; std::string *varname = new std::string(ss.str()); return varname->c_str(); } const char *VarNum = getVarNum(); Twine *x1 = new

> And for arguments, generally always use Twine as the default, it allows construction of complex things, and is still efficient when passed the equiv of a StringRef (with the toStringRef method).  The only annoying thing about it is that the API to do this requires a temporary SmallVector to scribble in, which makes it more difficult to use. > > It seems that there should be a good way

llvm::sys::fs::make_absolute converts its first parameter (const Twine &current_directory) to StringRef p(path.data(), path.size()), and then passes that StringRef to several functions (path::has_root_directory, path::has_root_name, and path::append) that accept Twines as parameters. Since llvm::StringRef can implicitly convert to an llvm::Twine, p converts to a bunch of Twine temporaries. In

According to documentation Twines should be used only for temporary values and not stored, so allocating the in heap sounds wrong. I think all you need here is static int varNum; ++varNum; Instruction *sstatusInst = new AllocaInst(StatusTy, Twine("status") + Twine(varNum), entry_inst); Instruction *sreqInst = new AllocaInst(ReqTy, Twine("request") + Twine(varNum),

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Eugene Toder <eltoder at gmail.com> wrote: > According to documentation Twines should be used only for temporary > values and not stored, so allocating the in heap sounds wrong. Yes, in general you should never be naming Twine directly, except in the case where you need to make a Twine for an integer. All other uses should be considered poor style, as

> Yes, exactly.  I'm just saying that I think the additional clarity of: >  "foo" + Twine('x') > > is worth the inconvenience. Ok, attached a modified version of my patch with an Twine(char), Twine(unsigned char), and Twine(signed char). All three are explicit & have included test cases. Speaking of which - is there any LLVM dev policy or preference around

> And for arguments, generally always use Twine as the default, it allows construction of complex things, and is still efficient when passed the equiv of a StringRef (with the toStringRef method).  The only annoying thing about it is that the API to do this requires a temporary SmallVector to scribble in, which makes it more difficult to use. Yes, I noticed this - which was one of my concerns

...t sure about. As I tried to explain above, > it seems problematic to have to choose your argument type on the basis > of how you think callers might use your API. From the perspective of a > caller, a Twine argument is at least as expressive as a StringRef > (since all StringRefs can be Twined implicitly), but it takes that > extra step to write the implementation. > > Perhaps I'm aiming for some kind of purist/perfectionist argument that > isn't necessary or practical, but I hope I've been clear in explaining > my uncertainty/issue here. Yes, I'm deeply...

On Jul 21, 2011, at 12:00 AM, David Blaikie wrote: >> And for arguments, generally always use Twine as the default, it allows construction of complex things, and is still efficient when passed the equiv of a StringRef (with the toStringRef method). The only annoying thing about it is that the API to do this requires a temporary SmallVector to scribble in, which makes it more difficult to

On Jul 24, 2011, at 12:09 AM, David Blaikie wrote: >> Yes, exactly. I'm just saying that I think the additional clarity of: >> "foo" + Twine('x') >> >> is worth the inconvenience. > > Ok, attached a modified version of my patch with an Twine(char), > Twine(unsigned char), and Twine(signed char). All three are explicit & > have

I'm rewriting this patch for the stubs to not use outputing of raw text. Generating the instructions is very straightforward and that part is done. I'm translating the actual function now. How do you emit an .ent or .globl from asm printer? .type ? .end ?? .section ??? I'm studying the classes now but it should be simple to do so if you know, you can save me some time because this

> Right, but that requires VS #ifdefs.  You can also use enum bitfields, but VS has different promotion rules from them than other compilers. Ah, I'd thought that feature (specifying the backing type with "enum name : integral_type") was standard, but I see it's a C++0x thing. My mistake. >> 1) the easy solution: create a StringRef subclass (or new type with a >>

On Jul 21, 2011, at 12:30 AM, David Blaikie wrote: >> [diff attached] > > Updated diff with test fix. (since this broke a test (printing chars > as numerical values, rather than characters) it's possible this change > is a bad idea & it could break the product code itself. Though > strangely I wasn't able to do character concatenation without my > change, so I

Hi, I am trying to use some LLVM API in my C++ code, and I end up getting linker errors. I am working on Apple MacOSX Lion. Using g++ for the compile. It is the CreateGlobalStringPtr which is throwing the error. This is LLVM 3.0. Here's the codeI am trying to use some LLVM API in my C++ code, and I end up getting linker errors. I am working on Apple MacOSX Lion. Using g++ for the compile. It

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > I now have an implementation of FileOutputBuffer (OutputBuffer was already taken).  The patch supports the functionality listed below and I've tested that it works for lld. > > To implement the FileOutputBuffer, I needed to add some more functions to llvm/Support/FileSystem.h, including: >  

On Aug 17, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Paweł Bylica <pawel.bylica at ibs.org.pl> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Paweł, > > > > Thanks for continuing this discussion. > > > > I like the simplicity of your suggestion. My only concern involves the ambiguity of what is meant by “environment”.

> The dangerous part of this is that characters are integers, so "foo" + 'x' is very likely to cause serious problems. std::string already provides such overloads though, doesn't it? So the code isn't any safer from accidental "foo" + 'x' expressions that don't include Twine/StringRef/std::string than it was before. But if the argument is that