search for: uglif

...e a problem. But it still results in undefined behavior. > > I'd like to get the extra checks working so that they can help find our > > more subtle bugs. Any idea what we should do here? > > I don't really have a good idea, but I also don't want to significantly > uglify the sourcebase... Passing two iterators is in the spirit of the standard library, so I don't consider that uglification. I understand others may disagree. In any event, leaving this kind of code in is asking for trouble down the road. -Dav...

Dear list, Whenever the flag "-Wstrict-prototypes" is set in gcc, compiling code that includes headers in lib/R/include generates often warnings (example with R-2.6.1: Rinternals.h:560: warning: function declaration isn't a prototype ). All such warnings I looked at were about functions with empty signatures declared as "bar foo();" rather than "bar

...gt; > The solution that this patch-set carries for this problem is to create > an assembly macro, and then call it from the inline assembly block. As > a result, the compiler sees a single "instruction" and assigns the more > appropriate cost to the code. > > To avoid uglification of the code, as many noted, the macros are first > precompiled into an assembly file, which is later assembled together > with the the C files. This also enables to avoid duplicate > implementation that was set before for the asm and C code. This can be > seen in the exception ta...

...> > The solution that this patch-set carries for this problem is to create > an assembly macro, and then call it from the inline assembly block. As > a result, the compiler sees a single "instruction" and assigns the more > appropriate cost to the code. > > To avoid uglification of the code, as many noted, the macros are first > precompiled into an assembly file, which is later assembled together > with the C files. This also enables to avoid duplicate implementation > that was set before for the asm and C code. This can be seen in the > exception table...

...lying on undefined behavior is bad :) >>> I'd like to get the extra checks working so that they can help find our >>> more subtle bugs. Any idea what we should do here? >> >> I don't really have a good idea, but I also don't want to significantly >> uglify the sourcebase... > > Passing two iterators is in the spirit of the standard library, so I don't > consider that uglification. I understand others may disagree. I totally agree that it is clean, the question is, how do we make it work? Here's a different suggestion that cloning...

...ggest bad thing is that it makes the extra checking code apparently useless :( > I'd like to get the extra checks working so that they can help find our > more subtle bugs. Any idea what we should do here? I don't really have a good idea, but I also don't want to significantly uglify the sourcebase... -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/

Coming back to the issues that I had integrating LLVM with MSSP, will the code in include/Support also be put in the llvm namespace? That will solve many problems and help prevent others. Rahul ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:13:03 -0600 (CST) >From: Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> >Subject: [LLVMdev] LLVM namespac'ification >To: LLVMdev List

Hi, I've been running LLVM with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG (extra checks) turned on to see what would happen, and it's been a complete disaster. The major problem is the use of this API: new CallInst(V, &Args[0], Args.size()); repeated throughout LLVM. When Args is empty, Args[0] is invalid, even if the next operation is taking the address. Trying to fix it illustrates the depth of the

...gt; > The solution that this patch-set carries for this problem is to create > an assembly macro, and then call it from the inline assembly block. As > a result, the compiler sees a single "instruction" and assigns the more > appropriate cost to the code. > > To avoid uglification of the code, as many noted, the macros are first > precompiled into an assembly file, which is later assembled together > with the C files. This also enables to avoid duplicate implementation > that was set before for the asm and C code. This can be seen in the > exception table...

Hi all, this patch series makes the necessary changes to make sure that the current ARM hypercall ABI can be used as-is on 64 bit ARM platforms: - it defines xen_ulong_t as uint64_t on ARM; - it introduces a new macro to handle guest pointers, called XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM (that has size 4 bytes on aarch and is going to have size 8 bytes on aarch64); - it replaces all the occurrences of