similar to: Vim plugin for outlining Markdown

Hello list, I use LLVM's vimrc and found that this setting below is useful when editing of reStructuredText file. llvm/utils/vim/vimrc " Enable syntax highlighting for reStructuredText files. To use, copy " rest.vim (http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=973) " to ~/.vim/syntax . augroup filetype au! BufRead,BufNewFile *.rst set filetype=rest augroup END

Thanks, Journeyer. I applied the patch with r176235. In future, you can submit patches to the llvm-commits mailing list. :) -bw On Feb 27, 2013, at 9:03 PM, Journeyer J. Joh <oosaprogrammer at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello list, > > I use LLVM's vimrc and found that this setting below is useful when > editing of reStructuredText file. > > > llvm/utils/vim/vimrc

I am trying to get the Vim-R-Plugin<http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=2628> to work with gvim and R on Windows 7. When I open a .R file in VIM, it complains and says ""Python interface must be enabled to run Vim-R-Plugin." I have installed pywin32 for python 2.7, and added the following 4 lines to my _vimrc per the instructions

Dear R users, People who uses vim in Linux/Unix may be interested in checking the plugin for R that I'm developing: http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=2628 The plugin includes omni completion for R objects, code indentation and communication with R running in a terminal emulator (xterm or gnome-terminal). This last feature was already present in Johannes Ranke's plugin.

Dear R users, The author of Tinn-R (Jose Claudio Faria) now is co-author of Vim-R-plugin2, a plugin that makes it possible to send commands from the Vim text editor to R. We added many new key bindings, restructured the menu and created new Tool Bar buttons. The new version is available at: http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=2628 NOTES: (1) Some old key binding changed,

Anyone recommend a markdown plugin/(syntax highlighting, indentation and other filetype-dependent settings) for vim? There seems to be a bunch of files floating around, I wondered if anyone had any opinions about which is best. thanks

Hi dude, Rubytest.vim 0.9.6 is just released. This version contains some small fix: * support rspec examples looks like example "this is an example" do * correctly handle single/double quote escape for rspec examples and vanilla testcases Check it out here: http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=2612 Best, Jan -- jan=callcc{|jan|jan};jan.call(jan)

Hi guys, I''m pleased to announce that rubytest.vim 0.9.5 is just released. Rubytest.vim is a vim (http://www.vim.org) plugin, which helps you to run many kinds of ruby test (including vanilla test, rspec, shoulda etc.) in vim. Changelog --------- + Support quickfix: display test errors/warnings in vim quickfix window, jump to the place where error raised in source

Dear R users, Some of you may be interested in the following announcement: The Vim-R-plugin now works on Windows too. With the Vim-R-plugin we can send commands to R from the text editor Vim: http://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=2628 Notes: On Windows, the plugin copies the command that will be sent to R into the clipboard. Thus, if you have anything in the clipboard it will be

The following code works fine as long as I don''t try to run it through the distributed server. It doesn''t get there... It runs fine out of delayed_job, runs fine if called directly. But if ''distrib'' is true (the default) it runs right up to the call to the server and right past it without getting to the server or raising any errors. Am using Ruby 1.8.6.26 ,

Daniel, OK, I see your point. My understanding was that VNDAG is an internal representation, not meant to be used by VN's customers (that should really care for classes of congruency, nothing more). Also, I thought that VN's results are available for a single function at a time. It seems that NewGVN provides access to VNDAGs computed for the whole program -- which enables its usage in

I think the "Motivation" section explained that. I too first thought about "why not at IR?" but the reason looks like MIR, post-RA has the most accurate heuristics (best way to know looks like actually getting there). Do you know if there is any experimental pass that relies on deriving heuristics by a feedback loop after letting, ie. a duplicate module/function/block continue

Hi, I let Jessica give more details but here are some insights. MIR offers a straight forward way to model benefits, because we know which instructions we remove and which one we add and there are no overhead of setting up parameters. Indeed, since the coloring will be the same between the different outlining candidates, the call is just a jump somewhere else. We do not have to worry about the

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:14 PM, River Riddle via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hey Graham, > I worked on pretty much this exact thing last year. I did something > similar to what you described, I traversed the CFG and built potentially > profitable regions from any given valid start node. At that point there > were several road blocks that prevented it

Hi Jessica, Thanks for the feedback. I believe the existing partial inliner pass does use some common utilities like the code extractor to do outlining. Is that what you're referring to? I don't recall seeing any other passes that has outlining other than the machine outliner, but I may have missed something. I briefly looked at River's RFC and it seems he's mainly utilizing

Daniel, I wonder what the NewGVN would generate for the following C code: int a, b; int foo() { return a + b; } int bar() { return a + b; } ? Obviously, the expressions would be the same ("value1 + value2"), but a single operator is not worthy to be outlined. What classes of congruency would be assigned to operands? The same for both reads of "a" and "b"? If

In general I would love to see an outliner at the IR level also. But rather than a comparison vs. the machine outliner I would like to learn more about how the core data structures between the outliners will be shared. In particular for matching/pruning it seems to be a reasonable approach. A few more remarks/questions are below also. Thanks Gerolf > On Sep 5, 2017, at 4:16 PM, River Riddle

Am I the only person who uses Markdown somewhat intensively and uses the Vim editor? I'm surprised that-- unless I'm missing it-- there is only one markdown "mode" for vim, and it is broken in all sorts of ways (most seriously, anything in square brackets other than a link breaks the syntax highlighting in a bad way, and it can't handle "text_like this text"). Emacs

2017-07-26 9:31 GMT-07:00 Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com>: > > On Jul 25, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2017-07-24 16:14 GMT-07:00 Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > >> Hi River, >> >> On Jul 24, 2017, at 2:36 PM, River Riddle <riddleriver at

I think that, given previous discussion on the topic, we might want a split like this: (1) Search structure Suffix tree or suffix array. (2) Numbering/mapping/congruence scheme Every outliner should implement a function that maps instructions (or whatever structure you want to outline, crazy thoughts…) to integers. That should be passed to the search structure, which will return a list of