search for: unioning

I tried your suggestion but still no luck, starting to think my domain is broken :( I did a debug when doing the migrate, not so if this will help On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:28 AM Rowland Penny via samba < samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 07:21:57 +0200 > Eben Victor <eben.victor at gmail.com> wrote: > > > I've been been trying to investigate

I've been been trying to investigate this for sometime now, hence I came to the experts :) I have rejoined all my DC's with new names, see below. ;; ANSWER SECTION: <domain>.corp. 3600 IN NS psad101zatcrh.<domain>.corp. -> New rebuild, new hostname, RHEL6 to RHEL7 upgrade <domain>.corp. 3600 IN NS prdc001zafsrh.<domain>.corp. -> New

Here is the LangRef part of the patch. On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 11, 2010, at 4:30 PM, Talin wrote: > > I'm working on a new version of the patch. >> >> Another thing I wanted to ask about - do you prefer to have one giant >> patch that has everything, or a series of incremental patches? I can

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Talin wrote: > > > > It depends on whether or not unions can be passed around as SSA values or > not. I can think of situations where you would want to. > > I'm skeptical that you *really* want to (i.e. that you wouldn't > be better off just

On Jan 1, 2009, at 6:25 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: >> Exactly. I'm not especially interested in C-style unions, I'm >> interested >> in discriminated unions. But the actual discriminator field is easily >> represented in LLVM IR already, so there's no need to extend the IR >> to >> support them. That's why I am only asking for C-style union

I'm still working on the next patch, it's going somewhat slowly. I wanted to create a unit test that actually created a union, and in order to do that I had to implement constant unions. And rather than creating a special syntax for constructing a union, I decided that it was simplest to implement the insertvalue instruction for a constant union expression: @foo = constant union {

2010/1/14 Talin <viridia at gmail.com>: > The reason for doing it this way is that to construct a union, you really > need 4 pieces of information: The type of the union, the type and value of > the member to be initialized, and the index of which member is being > initialized. Does requiring the index mean that uniquing the union type will have to re-write many of the

On Jan 12, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Talin wrote: > Here is the LangRef part of the patch. > +<p>The union type is used to represent a set of possible data types which can > + exist at a given location in memory (also known as an "untagged" > + union). [...] This wording is somewhat misleading; memory in LLVM has no types. How about: "A union type describes an

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Steven Perron <perrons at ca.ibm.com> wrote: > 3) How should we handle a reference directly through a union, and a > reference that is not through the union? > > My solution was to look for each member of the union overlaps the given > offset, and see if any of those members aliased the other reference. If no > member aliases the other

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Talin wrote: >> > >> > It depends on whether or not unions can be passed around as SSA values >> or not. I can think of situations where you would want to.

On Friday 02 January 2009 20:48:25 Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jan 1, 2009, at 6:25 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > >> Exactly. I'm not especially interested in C-style unions, I'm > >> interested in discriminated unions. But the actual discriminator field is > >> easily represented in LLVM IR already, so there's no need to extend the > >> IR to support

Hello all, I'm new to the llvm community. I'm learning how things work. I noticed that there has been some interest in improving how unions are handled. Bug 21725 is one example. I figured it might be a interesting place to start. I discussed this with a couple people, and below is a suggestion on how to represent unions. I would like some comments on how this fits in with how

Hi Wei, [auto build test WARNING on linus/master] [also build test WARNING on v4.11 next-20170504] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Wei-Wang/Extend-virtio-balloon-for-fast-de-inflating-fast-live-migration/20170505-052958 reproduce: make htmldocs All warnings (new ones prefixed by

Hi Wei, [auto build test WARNING on linus/master] [also build test WARNING on v4.11 next-20170504] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Wei-Wang/Extend-virtio-balloon-for-fast-de-inflating-fast-live-migration/20170505-052958 reproduce: make htmldocs All warnings (new ones prefixed by

On Jan 2, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: >>> I don't think you would want to build discriminated unions on top of >>> C-style unions though. >> >> Why? > > Uniformity when nesting and space efficiency. Users of a language > front-end > will want to nest discriminated unions, e.g. to manipulate trees. Okay, so you're just talking about boxed

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 12, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Talin wrote: > > > Here is the LangRef part of the patch. > > > +<p>The union type is used to represent a set of possible data types > which can > > + exist at a given location in memory (also known as an "untagged" > > +

I've been thinking about how to represent unions or "disjoint types" in LLVM IR. At the moment, the only way I know to achieve this right now is to create a struct that is as large as the largest type in the union and then bitcast it to access the fields contained within. However, that requires that the frontend know the sizes of all of the various low-level types (the

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:25 PM, me22 <me22.ca at gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/1/14 Talin <viridia at gmail.com>: > > The reason for doing it this way is that to construct a union, you really > > need 4 pieces of information: The type of the union, the type and value > of > > the member to be initialized, and the index of which member is being > >

So, https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32056 is an example showing our current TBAA tree for union generation is definitely irretrievably broken. I'll be honest here. I'm pretty sure your proposal doesn't go far enough. But truthfully, I would rather see us come closer to a representation we know works, which is GCC's. Let me try to simplify what you are suggesting, and what we

On Jan 6, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Talin wrote: > This patch adds a UnionType to DerivedTypes.h. Cool. When proposing an IR extension, it is usually best to start with a LangRef.html patch so that we can discuss the semantics of the extension. Please do write this before you get much farther. I assume that you want unions usable in the same situations as a struct. However, how do "constant