search for: tyed

Sorry to reply to myself here, but I had an idea regarding "issue #2" -- possibly what makes the most sense for those clients/targets is to pull the pointer difference computation/reapplication into RS4GC itself -- it could have a pass just before or after rematerialization, which runs based on a configuration flag (eventually to be driven by GCStrategy), which performs rewrites like

Thanks, I think that's a useful way to look at it (though if I wanted to bikeshed I'd suggest the name "DoubleIndirect" as a bit more precise than "VeryIndirect"). An aspect of it that I'm still puzzling over is that my target runtime (at least in its current form) doesn't have a way to represent/process a "VeryIndirect" pointer. So I'd like to

Here's a sketch of what I am proposing for ConstantBuilder. I'd like feedback on naming conventions, doc comments, etc. //===-- llvm/Support/ConstantBuilder.h - Builder for Constants --*- C++ -*-===// // // The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure // // This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source // License. See LICENSE.TXT for details. //

The following series implements libxl_domain_config_init as per the libxl API requirement that each type has an init function. The first function does this in an open coded manner and is proposed for Xen 4.2. The second function is RFC only since it moves the definition of this type into the IDL and makes the required infrastructure updates to enable this. I think this is more 4.3 material at

Un texte encapsul? et encod? dans un jeu de caract?res inconnu a ?t? nettoy?... Nom : non disponible URL : <https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/20100625/44fbea79/attachment.pl>

The langref says for the 'add' instruction: Syntax: <result> = add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ; yields {ty}:result <result> = nuw add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ; yields {ty}:result <result> = nsw add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ; yields {ty}:result <result> = nuw nsw add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ;

Hello, I was using garchFit {fGarch} to fit some GARCH processes. I noticed that the result contains "Log Likelihood" value (right above "Description"), but when I use .. at fit$llh to retrieve Log Likelihood value, the sign switched. I am confused about which value I should choose to report... Any help here? Thanks a lot! Ted -- View this message in context:

For anyone following along on ToT using the gc.statepoint mechanism, you should know that ToT is currently not able to express arbitrary exceptional control flow and relocations along exceptional edges. This is a direct result of moving the gc.statepoint representation to using a token type landingpad. Essentially, we have a design inconsistency where we expect to be able to

Introduction: We would like to add new keyword to 'sdiv'\'udiv' instructions i.e. 'no-overflow'. This is the updated solution devised in the discussion: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118257.html The proposed keywords: "nof" stands for 'no-overflow' Syntax: <result> = sdiv nof <ty> <op1>,

Following series cleans up a few niggles in the libxl destructor autogeneration. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Hi, This is quite a simple question so hopefully it's easy to answer. I was looking at the documentation for the alloca instruction ( http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#alloca-instruction ) and something is unclear to me. The given syntax is... <result> = alloca <type>[, <ty> <NumElements>][, align <alignment>] ; yields {type*}:result And the documentation

Hi, I am trying to create a function for a goodness-of-fit test for the Pareto Distribution for some loss data that I have. So far I have the following: function(X=OTOL) { n <- length(X)-1 #calculated the number of values (extra as 0 included) i <- 2:640 #values of i j <- 1:639 #values of i-1 Y <- (n-j+1)*((X[i])-(X[j])) #First part of GoF model Y } Where OTOL is the ordered loss

I just want to make sure I understand the semantic of the icmp function correctly as assumption are dangerous in this domain. The syntax is specified as follow: <result> = icmp <cond> <ty> <var1>, <var2> ; yields {bool}:result But I can not find the documentation for <ty>. Is the following interpretation correct: Both <var1> and <var2> are

Hi Evan, > LValue LV = EmitLV(lhs); > bool isVolatile = TREE_THIS_VOLATILE(lhs); > unsigned Alignment = expr_align(exp) / 8 > > It's using the alignment of the expression, rather than the memory > object of LValue. can't you just use expr_align(lhs) instead? > The patch saves the alignment of the memory object in LValue returned > by EmitLV().

Hello all, This is a general question regarding type conversion: from: <ty>** to: [<size> x <ty>]* >From what I understand, bitcast is wrong in this case because a GEP into a <ty>** should be computed differently from a GEP into [<size> x <ty>]*. So, what is the correct way to perform this type conversion? Thanks, Siddharth -- Sending this from my

Hi Mon Ping, Generalizing shufflevector would be great. I have an additional suggestion below. On 29-Sep-08, at 11:11 PM, Mon Ping Wang wrote: > I am proposing to extend the shuffle vector definition to be > <result> = shufflevector <n x <ty>> <v1>, <n x <ty>> <v2>, <m x i32> > <mask> ; yields <m x <ty>> > > The

The following series of patches fill in most of the gaps in the OCaml bindings to libxl, to make them useful for clients such as xapi/xenopsd (from XCP). There are a number of bugfixes to the existing bindings as well. I have an experimental version of xenopsd that successfully uses the new bindings. An earlier version of the first half of the series was submitted to the last by Ian Campbell on

I'm probably missing something simple here but in: CGDebugInfo.h: std::vector<std::pair<void *, llvm::WeakVH> >ReplaceMap; but then in CGDebugInfo.cpp: llvm::DIType TC = getTypeOrNull(Ty); void * v = Ty.getAsOpaquePtr(); std::pair<void *, llvm::WeakVH> tmp = std::make_pair(v, TC); if (TC.Verify() && TC.isForwardDecl())

Hi R experts, I'm using the xyplot function in lattice to draw a multipanel plot consiting of 5x6 scatterplots. Now I need to link single points in each of those scatterplots (=panel),but the points, that need linking are different for each panel. I tried to use the panel.segments function for that, but I can't address each panel separately. Links right for panel 1, show up in all other

Changes since last time: - split auto-generated code in to c and h files - un-break the build system - fix ocaml binding due to libxl API change - lot''s of tidy-ups too numerous to mention Please consider and apply :) -----8<--------------------------------------------------------------- Introduce python binding for libxl. The binding is not yet complete but list_domains,