similar to: R CMD check, NOTEs, & S4-dependent packages

Have UI that simplifies running code from another (internal) package, allowing user to set values on fields I basically grabbed from results of calls to formals() for various functions. That works fine for the most part. But it was requested to investigate some type of popup help or something for each field. Since I already wrote the information in the dot-Rd files for what should be displayed,

I have two packages, one that does the actual work (SC) and the other a Tcl/Tk UI (SCUI) that invokes methods within the former. Within the SCUI's invocation method, I save an object returned from SC, the results of a long-running method. Now the object is completely described by the SC package. Unfortunately, any attempt to load the object (in a fresh R session) fails as below. R>

On 6 janv. 2011, at 19:00, llvmdev-request at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: >> I'm using LLVM to JIT-compile the XL programming language. I've recently added a whole-program optimization phase that gives excellent results, but I noticed that the StripDeadPrototypesPass was removing all references to my runtime support functions. > > why is that a problem? Because I have pointers to

I'm attempting to reflect the information for use with corresponding fields in GUI (in a different package), to provide default values, argname as key for UI label lookups, etc. So I want something much more like the formals of the implementation: { "object", "method": c("median", "vs", "tukey"),

Interrogating some (of my own) code in another package. >norm.meth <- getMethod("normalize", "MatrixLike") >message("str(norm.meth)") >str(norm.meth) >message("show(norm.meth at .Data)") >show(norm.meth at .Data) Last show() displays this: function (object, ...) { .local <- function (object, method = c("median",

I got numerous warnings when building rsync on IA64 (Itanium-2) using Intel C/C++ compiler (see attached). Is this expected? Thanks, Michael -------------- next part -------------- Script started on Fri 21 Sep 2007 06:14:05 PM BST ~/src$ ls -alt total 222884 -rw-r--r-- 1 mccssmb2 mcc101 0 Sep 21 18:14 build_rsync drwxr-xr-x 8 mccssmb2 mcc101 4096 Sep 21 18:14 . -rw-r--r-- 1

What a delicious example! (I'm taking the liberty of sharing it with r-devel, since it raises some good issues.) You have two questions, presumably: 1 - how could the order of the setMethod calls make a difference in the results? 2 - what's causing the infinite loop & how could it be avoided, reliably? Second question first. The danger sign is the "vector" method:

Hi R-devels, in "Writing R extensions" as well as in the help to .onAttach(), you mention that one could use this function to issue a start-up message/banner for the package. My little wish for Easter: a 'quietly'-type argument for .onAttach() / .First.lib() which is passed through by functions require() and library() respectively, and by means of which one could optionally

Hi Rajesh, The callee code looks okay to me > Assembly for check114 > --------------------------------------------------------------- > sub sp, sp, #16 > push {r11, lr} > mov r11, sp > sub sp, sp, #8 > str r3, [r11, #20] > str r2, [r11, #16] > str r1, [r11, #12] > ldr r1,

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130618/5b2a15e3/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 201306181656803_BEI0XT4N.gif Type: image/gif Size: 14036 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130618/5b2a15e3/attachment.gif>

> - "since ABI says the stack pointer needs to be 8 byte aligned at function entry point" (taken from Manman's reply) > What will be considered as entry point here? > Is it place of SP Adjustments "sub sp, sp, #16" > (Or) Is it place of first user instruction(end of prologue) "ldr r2, .LCPI0_0" Eight byte stack alignment is a

Well, I was able to build R 2.14.0 on my Solaris x86 machine, with a lot of work and some help. Thanks! At first the update.packages() would not work because some of the .so files that came with R were 32 - not 64 bit. I was able to install them and so now the update.packages() works. I still have a couple of issues: 1) a lot of packages are not available for R 2.14.0. 2) When compiling I

Hello, i mainly code in c/c++ on linux. I would like to know if I can generate code at runtime using llvm, like libgccjit -> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/jit/ My needs are : create functions, conditions, loops at runtime. libgccjit does the job pretty well but I would like to test llvm too (licence issue). Is it possible ? Is there a resource that helps in that regard ? Kaleidoscope

I have some code where the primary dispatching is on other parameters so I'd like not to have to create a set of functions for "matrix" and another duplicate set for "array". But the class union technique isn't working as implemented below and I don't have my Green book with me. How do I fix my infinite recursion problem?

First, surely the right place for this discussion is the cfe-dev mailing list? Second, have you determined that this is a noticeable amount of time when compiling? I have no idea - in my Pascal compiler, parsing the code is ~0.1%, codegen to IR ~1.9% and LLVM 98%. But I'm sure Clang is more complex in many ways, so the proportion is probably a bit different - a measurement of the time spent

I hope this in the right list, but I was wondering if someone could help me with a VM I have that has lately started having problems. It had been running for years without problems. It's possible an update is causing this, but I can't say. The VM is running CentOS 5.8 and after a time, the machine begins to slow down. Things like pings or running commands lag. If I reboot the VM, it runs

<div>Is there any chance to create feature request for that useful functionality?</div><div>š</div><div>02.07.2015, 14:03, "Rusty Newton" <rnewton@digium.com>:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div>On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:46 AM, <span><<a href="mailto:royj@yandex.ru"

Hello, folks! Currently me with one other guy are trying to play with clang. The proposal may seem stupid, excuse me, if it was already discussed, we just want to try to implement something useful which seems absent for now. Ok, the idea. It seems interesting to try to make lexer a little bit more efficient in terms of macro expanding by applying partial expansion of macros. the idea is that

On Apr 19, 2012, at 12:46 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 19, 2012, at 11:15 AM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > >> >> From: Evan Cheng [mailto:evan.cheng at apple.com] >> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 10:47 AM >> To: Justin Holewinski >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; Vinod Grover >> Subject:

<br />Hello, <br />Ecx is a problem because you have to xor it. Which is avoided in the gcc compilation. Fomit-pointer-frame helps.<br /><br />Now llvm is one instruction from gcc. If ecx was not used, it would be as fast.<br />-- <br />Sent from Yandex.Mail for mobile<br /><br />20:03, 13 July 2015, Matthias Braun <mbraun@apple.com>:<br