similar to: Windows Vista Setup

R's { expr1; expr2; expr3} acts much like C's ( expr1, expr2, expr3) E.g., $ cat a.c #include <stdio.h> int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { double y = 10 ; double x = (printf("Starting... "), y = y + 100, y * 20); printf("Done: x=%g, y=%g\n", x, y); return 0; } $ gcc -Wall a.c $ ./a.out Starting... Done: x=2200, y=110 I don't like that

Thank you both! I was running into the issue that bugpoint was reducing my test-case into other failures and I hadn't managed yet to find the right point in the Julia pass pipeline to insert the module to reproduce the issue reliably from llc and that's why I started looking at using the MIR. I will go back at looking at the pass pipeline and the IR and get a reproducer that way!

Valentin, in terms of limitations as Sean pointed out, an important one is that .mir doesn't have MachineFunctionInfo which may result in failure on accesses to global variables due to use of register X2. The verifier considers it an undefined register. Also, it's probably easier to reduce test cases using bugpoint starting from an IR test case. With the code you provided, I get a

Hello Akshay, R is quite inspired by LISP, where this is a common thing. It is not in fact that {...} returned something, rather any expression evalulates to some value, and for a compound statement that is the last evaluated expression. {...} might be seen as similar to LISPs (begin ...). Now this is a very different thing compared to {...} in something like C, even if it looks or behaves

Returning the last value of { is the basis of functions not needing a return statement. Before R invokes a function (specifically a closure), it creates a new context. When R evaluates a call to return, it looks for a context to return from and finds the context of function, ending the context and the evaluation of the function body early. However, if you don't use return, R just returns the

Fair enough, Akshay. Wondering why a design was chosen is reasonable. There are languages like python that allow unpacking multiple values and it is not uncommon to return multiple things from some constructs as in this: >>> a,b,c = { 4, 5, 6 } >>> a 4 >>> b 5 >>> c 6 But that is a bit of an illusion as the thing in curly braces is a very

I'm not sure if this helps, but here it is in case it does. I typically use bugpoint in a way as to keep the actual failure that I'm after. For example, with the test case you've pasted, I was looking for a specific assert. So I used bugpoint this way: $ cat reduceme.sh #!/bin/bash llc -filetype=obj $1 2>&1 | grep 'Cannot lower calls with arbitrary operand bundles'

Akshay, Your question seems a tad mysterious to me as you are complaining about NOTHING. R was designed to return single values. The last statement executed in a function body, for example, is the value returned even when not at the end. Scoping is another issue entirely. What is visible is another discussion. So, yes, if you can see ALL the variables, you might see the last one BUT there

Dear Avi, Thanks for your reply...your exhortations are indeed justified...! But one caveat: I was not complaining about anything...just was curious of the rationale of a particular design....Thanks again... Thanking you, Yours sincerely, AKSHAY M KULKARNI ________________________________ From: R-help <r-help-bounces at r-project.org> on behalf of avi.e.gross at gmail.com

Dear Valentin, But why should {....} "return" a value? It could just as well evaluate all the expressions and store the resulting objects in whatever environment the interpreter chooses, and then it would be left to the user to manipulate any object he chooses. Don't you think returning the last, or any value, is redundant? We are living in the 21st century

Richard, A slight addition to your code shows an important aspect of R, local vs. global variables: x <- 137 f <- function () { a <- x x <- 42 b <- x list(a=a, b=b) } f() print(x) ________________________________________ From: R-help <r-help-bounces at r-project.org> on behalf of Richard O'Keefe <raoknz at gmail.com> Sent: Sunday,

I wonder if the real confusino is not R's scope rules? (begin .) is not Lisp, it's Scheme (a major Lisp dialect), and in Scheme, (begin (define x ...) (define y ...) ...) declares variables x and y that are local to the (begin ...) form, just like Algol 68. That's weirdness 1. Javascript had a similar weirdness, when the ECMAscript process eventually addressed. But the real

In our fork of LLVM we often need to reduce a crash testcase for a specific assertion. After writing lots of "only give me this specific assertion" scripts like the above I decided to write a script that automates all this for me: <https://github.com/CTSRD-CHERI/clang/blob/master/utils/creduce_crash_testcase.py>. (It's called creduce_crash_test.py but it will actually use

Hello Valentin, To generate a mir test case i think the process is to first create an IR file by passing '-S -emit-llvm' to clang, then you can feed that file into llc and use stop-before to get the mir just before the if-converter pass, eg: `llc -stop-before=if-converter -simplify-mir -o test.mir test.ll`. Also there is a MIR language reference: https://llvm.org/docs/MIRLangRef.html

Valentin, Please check if the VM guest has vm-tools installed else the ?virsh migrate --live? parameter requirement is not fulfilled else you has to turn off the VM guest and do the offline ?virsh migrate? without ?--live? options. Hope that helps. Xlord From: CentOS-virt [mailto:centos-virt-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of Sandro Bonazzola Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:57 PM To:

Richard, I sent my prior email too quickly: A slight addition to your code shows an important aspect of R, local vs. global variables: x <- 137 f <- function () { a <- x x <- 42 b <- x list(a=a, b=b) } f() print(x) When run the program produces the following: > x <- 137 > f <- function () { + a <- x + x <- 42 +

My R version is 2.7.1 (on Debian) and some packages are asking for > 2.10. I've done all things from http://cran.r-project.org/bin/linux/debian/ but to no success. Apt-get upgrade is doing nothing. server:/etc/R# apt-cache policy r-base-core r-base-core: Installed: 2.7.1-1+lenny1 Candidate: 2.7.1-1+lenny1 Version table: *** 2.7.1-1+lenny1 0 500 http://mirrors.nl.kernel.org

Hello, I have a data frame with 3 vectors $x, $y, and $type. I would like to plot $x~$y and having different colors for the corresponding points, one for each level of $type. Would someone know how to do that? Is it possible to then generate a legend automatically? Valentin

Again, John, we are comparing different designs in languages that are often decades old and partially retrofitted selectively over the years. Is it poor form to use global variables? Many think so. Discussions have been had on how to use variables hidden in various ways that are not global, such as within a package. But note R still has global assignment operators like <<- and its partner

I am trying to install the maverick version. The lucid version works flawlessly, but this one promts this messages. The following packages have unmet dependencies: r-base: Depends: r-base-core (>= 2.12.0-1maverick0) but it is not going to be installed Depends: r-recommended (= 2.12.0-1maverick0) but it is not going to be installed Recommends: r-base-html but it is not going