similar to: how to get access to C++ Objects

Hi folks, My system is Windows98 + R1.9.0. The path for my system is c:\perl\bin; c:\mingw\bin; c:\rtools; c:\windows; c:\windows\command; c:\rw1090\bin. I created three files followed the examples in “Writing R extensions” in the directory c:\temp: // X.hh class X { public: X (); ~X (); }; class Y { public: Y (); ~Y (); }; // X.cc #include <iostream> #include "X.hh" static

Hi, I followed the example in "Writing R Extensions" to create a shared object in Windows, using the command R CMD SHLIB X.cc X_main.cc This was encountered: ../src/gnuwin32/MkRules:155: warning: overriding commands for target '.c.d' ../src/gnuwin32/MkRules:143: warning: ignoring old commands for target '.c.d' ../src/gnuwin32/MkRules:171: warning: overriding commands

Hi, apparently I sent my question about using R and C++ to the wrong list, ironically seeing as that list was called Rcpp. Anyway, I was directed to post my question here. To summarize my current question, I have found two commands that I want to be able to put into a package. The commands are 'R CMD SHLIB X.cc X_main.cc' and

I am trying to get a dll compiled for use with dyn.load. I use R.1.7.1 under Windows. I have tried the following trivial example based on the "Writing R extensions" manual. rtest.h -------- class X { public: X (); ~X (); void Give7(double*); }; class Y { public: Y (); ~Y (); }; rtest.cpp --------- #include <iostream.h> #include "rtest.h" static Y y;

Hi, Can you help me please. I must developp an application with the logiciel R. It 's an application for pricing. So I see it uses the langage C and I see on the net taht it 's possible in c++. Use C++ it 's better than C , we know it. However It says to use c++ with R , we must : " You need to do two things: (a) Write a wrapper to export the symbols you

Hi, I am trying to set up a C++ library for my R code. I followed the R-extension manual but found out that the example of "X.cpp, X_main.cpp" is somewhat too simple. Here is my code: //lib4R.h testing for interfacing C++ with R -- using C++ library in R #include <iostream> using namespace std; class lib4R { public: lib4R(); ~lib4R(); int

Hi All, This is Lian Li from Oracle Labs in Brisbane Australia. We have developed a precise and highly efficient pointer analysis framework on top of LLVM, The approach is flow, context, and field sensitive, details are described in the two papers below: "Boosting the performance of flow-sensitive points-to analysis using value flow" (in ESEC-FSE 2011), and "Precise and

On Oct 17, 2013, at 5:20 PM, lian li <lianli at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > This is Lian Li from Oracle Labs in Brisbane Australia. > > We have developed a precise and highly efficient pointer analysis > framework on top of LLVM, The approach is flow, context, and field > sensitive, details are described in the two papers below: > > "Boosting the

Hi Jeremy, 2013/9/13 Jeremy Bell <bell.jeremy at gmail.com>: > I looked into the archives as far back as 2009 and searched around for more > information about vmkit, but I still have some questions. > > First of all, what is that status of VMKit? Is there any active development? > A roadmap? Is it in maintenance mode? The development is inactive since two month because the

Thanks, Chris. We are interested in contributing it to LLVM itself. Our manager agrees to commit resources for maintenance needs if it is accepted by the community. Regards, Lian On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 17, 2013, at 5:20 PM, lian li <lianli at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > > This is Lian Li from

Hi Lian, I am certainly interested in seeing this; do you have performance numbers (compile time)? Also, can you share more information about the promising optimization results you mentioned? Thanks, Hal ----- Original Message ----- > Hi All, > > This is Lian Li from Oracle Labs in Brisbane Australia. > > We have developed a precise and highly efficient pointer analysis >

On Oct 17, 2013, at 10:51 PM, lian li <lianli at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, Chris. > > We are interested in contributing it to LLVM itself. Our manager > agrees to commit resources for maintenance needs if it is accepted by > the community. This is great. Please make sure Oracle legal sign off on explicitly granting LLVM the use of the patents associated with the work. On

Hi Evan, We did an experiment using the LLVM test suite: we compare the overhead of using our analysis to the LLVM default, both with -O2 option. The overall overhead of compiling the whole test suite using our analysis is 36.5%. The biggest overhead is observed in "SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/flops-5", where we are 5 times slower: 0.07s (with our analysis) compared to

Hi Hal, Thanks for your interest. We tested with the following existing compiler optimizations in LLVM with SPECINT2006 benchmarks: -dse (dead store elimination), -gvn (global value numbering), -licm (loop invariant code motion), -bb-vectorize (basic block vectorization), -memcpyopt (memcpy optimization), -sink (code sinking), -loop-idom (recognize loop idioms), -argpromotion (argument

----- Original Message ----- > Hi Evan, > > We did an experiment using the LLVM test suite: we compare the > overhead of using our analysis to the LLVM default, both with -O2 > option. It might also be interesting to try with -O3; I don't know if we have any significant vectorizable loops in the test suite with a large number of arrays, but if we do, this kind of analysis

I notice you guys formulate your CFL reachability problem as a balanced parentheses problem. What algorithm do you use to solve it? Are you aware of recent work that comes up with linear time and n log n time algorithms to solve this class of problems: http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/lyu/_media/paper/pldi2013.pdf In particular, the time bound from the paper: "However, if we need the precise

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > Hi Evan, > > > > We did an experiment using the LLVM test suite: we compare the > > overhead of using our analysis to the LLVM default, both with -O2 > > option. > > It might also be interesting to try with -O3; I don't know if we have any

Hi Daniel, I want to clarify that our analysis is not based on CFL-reachability. We apply CFL-reachability to matching context information where the exist from a function to a call-site must match the entry from the corresponding call-site. The problem is a simple balanced parentheses problem in CFL-reachability, and it can be computed efficiently. The paper you mentioned is a very nice paper

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:27 AM, lian li <lianli at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I want to clarify that our analysis is not based on CFL-reachability. > We apply CFL-reachability to matching context information where the > exist from a function to a call-site must match > the entry from the corresponding call-site. Yes, sorry, I pulled the wrong quote, it was late.

On Oct 22, 2013, at 1:29 PM, llvmdev-request at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > Send LLVMdev mailing list submissions to > llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > llvmdev-request at cs.uiuc.edu > > You can