search for: uniquify

Hi all, While working on alias support for the LLVM-ML project, I ran into a feature implemented back in 2010: default-null weak externals in COFF, a GNU extension. https://reviews.llvm.org/rG17990d56907b I'd like to disable this feature when targeting MSVC compatibility. Does anyone have more context on this, and why it'd be a terrible idea? For context: This seems to be designed to let

...e specified as a strings: "noinline", "ssp", etc., because a metadata object can hold only a Value type. Secondly, I don't want to have a "loop" in the attributes: !1 = metadata !{ !"noinline", !2 } !2 = metadata !{ !1, !"ssp" } This makes uniquifying the attributes that much harder. We also want to be able to intelligently merge the attribute groups. These two groups are identical: #1 = attributes { noredzone noinline sspreq "mcpu"="cortex-a8" } #2 = attributes { "mcpu"="cortex-a8" sspreq noinlin...

...B was the expression A + Bottom, then B would become bottom, and so would C, and no folding will ever be allowed. In some sense, Bottom is the anti-thesis to Unknown. Unknown provides a boundary that encapsulates unknown semantics, while Bottom invalidates anything it touches! Also, how would one uniquify Bottom expressions? Should they all be considered identical? Sameer.

I'd like a value, call it Bottom, such that SE->getAddExpr(Bottom, X) => Bottom SE->getMulExpr(Bottom, X,) => Bottom isKnownPredicate(any, Bottom, X) => false etc. I can write code to make NULL work like I want, but it would be simpler if something was already defined. I'm wondering about SCEV::Unknown. The documentation suggests I could perhaps use it for a

Howdy all, I have a problem that I'd like some advice/help in solving---it has to do with R's pass-by-value system. I understand the issue, but am wondering if anyone has found a working solution in dealing with it for cases when one wants to modify an object inside of a method, specifically when working with S4. I'm aware that R.oo is able to deal with this using S3, but I'd

...39;b -> 'a -> ('a * 'b) list -> 'b (** Like {!List.assoc} but with a user-defined comparison function, and instead of raising [Not_found], it returns the [~default] value. *) +val uniq : ?cmp:('a -> 'a -> int) -> 'a list -> 'a list + (** Uniquify a list (the list must be sorted first). *) + +val sort_uniq : ?cmp:('a -> 'a -> int) -> 'a list -> 'a list + (** Sort and uniquify a list. *) + val may : ('a -> unit) -> 'a option -> unit (** [may f (Some x)] runs [f x]. [may f None] does nothing. *)...

..."noinline", "ssp", etc., because a metadata object can hold only a Value type. Secondly, I don't want to have a "loop" in the attributes: > > !1 = metadata !{ !"noinline", !2 } > !2 = metadata !{ !1, !"ssp" } > > This makes uniquifying the attributes that much harder. > > We also want to be able to intelligently merge the attribute groups. These two groups are identical: > > #1 = attributes { noredzone noinline sspreq "mcpu"="cortex-a8" } > #2 = attributes { "mcpu"="corte...

...en B would become bottom, and so would C, and no folding will > ever be allowed. > > In some sense, Bottom is the anti-thesis to Unknown. Unknown provides > a boundary that encapsulates unknown semantics, while Bottom > invalidates anything it touches! > > Also, how would one uniquify Bottom expressions? Should they all be > considered identical? > > Sameer. > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

..., >> etc., because a metadata object can hold only a Value type. Secondly, >> I don't want to have a "loop" in the attributes: >> >> !1 = metadata !{ !"noinline", !2 } >> !2 = metadata !{ !1, !"ssp" } >> >> This makes uniquifying the attributes that much harder. >> >> We also want to be able to intelligently merge the attribute groups. >> These two groups are identical: >> >> #1 = attributes { noredzone noinline sspreq "mcpu"="cortex-a8" } >> #2 = attributes {...

...t; > These are the two corner cases I was thinking of. I had these ones in mind as well and my experience using the template visitor pattern for this kind of thing is that the API can usually be marked to add that metadata (metadata-ception). For example, the concept of members necessary for uniquifying an instance via a hash will map nicely to the concept of "composite primary keys" which has a clean solution that I like[1], and could be used as inspiration. Or even something as simple as: template<typename Visitor> void visit(Visitor & v) { v.keys("Property1"...

Dear R People: I'm running Rmpi on a single machine and I have the following statement from the command line: mpirun -np 3 ./R --no-save < eek1.in >stuff4.out The stuff4.out file only contains the third result. Is there a way to fix this such that it shows all 3 sets, please Thanks in advance, Erin -- Erin Hodgess Associate Professor Department of Computer and Mathematical

Hi! I've got a time series as a zoo object which contains hourly values. My problem is that these values occur in every "real" hour with regard to daylight savings time. I.e. the last sunday in march, i'll have 23values whereas the last sunday in october contains 25 values instead of 24. Thus if I try to aggregate the data using for example tapply (e.g. to get a monthly mean),

Hi Bill, On 30/12/12 03:21, Bill Wendling wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > Sorry, I forgot to respond to this. They can be arbitrary strings that are known only to the specific back-end. It may be beneficial to define them inside of the LangRef document though. this sounds so much like metadata... What was the reason for not enhancing metadata to cover this use case? I'm sure you explained

...li index 5b0b9bb..97c7d9f 100644 --- a/mllib/common_utils.mli +++ b/mllib/common_utils.mli @@ -141,6 +141,42 @@ val uniq : ?cmp:('a -> 'a -> int) -> 'a list -> 'a list val sort_uniq : ?cmp:('a -> 'a -> int) -> 'a list -> 'a list (** Sort and uniquify a list. *) +val push : 'a list ref -> 'a -> unit +val unshift : 'a -> 'a list ref -> unit +val pop : 'a list ref -> 'a +val shift : 'a list ref -> 'a +(** Imperative list manipulation functions, similar to the Perl + functions described in http...

All, I have two ActiveRecord objects. TargetList has_many Targets Targets belongs_to TargetList I''ve specified belongs_to :target_list, :foreign_key => ''DataSetID'' Queries generated by various methods in target_list do not seem to see the foreign_key name and keep trying to query my Target table using "target_list_id" (the default foreign

...he two corner cases I was thinking of. > > I had these ones in mind as well and my experience using the template visitor pattern for this kind of thing is that the API can usually be marked to add that metadata (metadata-ception). > > For example, the concept of members necessary for uniquifying an instance via a hash will map nicely to the concept of "composite primary keys" which has a clean solution that I like[1], and could be used as inspiration. Or even something as simple as: > > template<typename Visitor> > void visit(Visitor & v) { > v.keys(&q...

...li index 68c0d54..ad43345 100644 --- a/mllib/common_utils.mli +++ b/mllib/common_utils.mli @@ -147,6 +147,12 @@ val uniq : ?cmp:('a -> 'a -> int) -> 'a list -> 'a list val sort_uniq : ?cmp:('a -> 'a -> int) -> 'a list -> 'a list (** Sort and uniquify a list. *) +val remove_duplicates : 'a list -> 'a list +(** Remove duplicates from an unsorted list; useful when the order + of the elements matter. + + Please use [sort_uniq] when the order does not matter. *) + val push_back : 'a list ref -> 'a -> unit val push_...

Hi Rafael, Sorry, I forgot to respond to this. They can be arbitrary strings that are known only to the specific back-end. It may be beneficial to define them inside of the LangRef document though. -bw On Oct 4, 2012, at 7:47 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >> attrgroup #1 = { "long-calls", "cpu=cortex-a8", "thumb" }

> On May 29, 2018, at 12:55, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 29, 2018, at 12:28 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> +some of the debug info cabal (& Duncan, as an emeritus member, and person who plumbed a lot of the current debug info syntax support in) >>

Hi everybody. I want to identify duplicate numbers and to increase a value of 0.01 for each time that it is duplicated. Example: x=c(1,2,3,5,6,2,8,9,2,2) I want to do this: 1 2 + 0.01 3 5 6 2 + 0.02 8 9 2 + 0.03 2 + 0.04 I am trying to get something like this: 1 2.01 3 5 6 2.02 8 9 2.03 2.04 Actually I just know the way to identify the duplicated numbers rbind(x, duplicated(x) |