similar to: Extending llvm::iterator_range

Hi all, As RFCs go this is short and sweet - I think it would be nice to add an empty method to iterator_range. Something like: bool empty() const { return begin() != end(); } My motivation is to make the 'if' test at the start of this common pattern tidier: if (!collection.empty()) // initialization... for (auto& c : collection) // do something for each c. which I think that

On Mar 19, 2014, at 11:32 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> As RFCs go this is short and sweet - I think it would be nice to add an >> empty method to iterator_range. Something like: >> >> bool empty() const { return begin() != end();

Hi, I'm part of an engineering team doing research on persistent memory support and we have stumbled upon an interesting problem. The issue is, we would like to be able to use the standard library containers in a persistent memory context (think NVDIMM-N). What I mean is that you allocate a container from said memory, use it like you normally would. After the application terminates, expectedly

Hi Chandler, Agreed - ranges aren't containers, just views of sequences. Still, that's all many algorithms want, and it's just as valid to ask whether a sequence is empty as it is to ask that of a container. No contest on points 2 or 3, but I'm confused about point 4. When are ranges not pairs of iterators? I mean in a way that would clash with the proposal for empty() to be

how do I create a data frame with the given column names _NOT KNOWN IN ADVANCE_? i.e., I have a vector of strings for names and I want to get an _EMPTY_ data frame with these column names. is it at all possible? -- Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on CentOS release 5.3 (Final) http://openvotingconsortium.org http://pmw.org.il http://memri.org http://mideasttruth.com

Trying to build LLVM 3.8 (or trunk) with the 2016 Intel C++ compiler. It fails on the std::declval feature: llvm-3.8/include/llvm/ADT/iterator_range.h(63): error: namespace "std" has no member "declval" iterator_range<decltype(begin(std::declval<T>()))> drop_begin(T &&t, int n) { An isolated std::declval example shows that this compiler doesn't

Hi all, Just tried to build from svn sources with Visual Studio 2008, mostly OK but fails building the X86AsmParser lib - I see a few commits from yesterday that may have something to do with it, but no idea what the solution is. -David See MSVC's beautiful and concise output below; Compiling... X86AsmParser.cpp C:\dev\MSVisualStudio\VC\include\xutility(313) : error C2664: 'bool

It could be that 32-bit systems are disappearing so rapidly that nobody cares too much about this issue, but this blog post is still worth reading: http://trust-in-soft.com/objects-larger-than-ptrdiff_max-bytes/ John

On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:47 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: >> I'm not aware of the prior art or standards are here, but I think that a global reverse() adapter is the way to go. Likewise, we should have a standard "enumerate()" adaptor like python. >> >> I definitely prefer the global adaptor pattern. As for prior art, I had played with

On Sep 6, 2010, at 10:50 PM, David Shipman wrote: > Hi all, > > Just tried to build from svn sources with Visual Studio 2008, mostly > OK but fails > building the X86AsmParser lib - > > I see a few commits from yesterday that may have something to do with it, but no > idea what the solution is. Wow, that's a pretty terrible diagnostic. Does r113198 help? -Chris

I've come across this issue before and came to the following conclusion: - We are not obligated to support objects that large, C11 5.2.4.1/1 only requires that we support objects of size 65535! Their guidance for maximum object size is stated to be half of SIZE_MAX in C11 K.3.4/4 which is typically equivalent to PTRDIFF_MAX. - The expectation that PTRDIFF_MAX is more or less a proxy for the

On 2016-05-20 19:58, David Majnemer via llvm-dev wrote: > I've come across this issue before and came to the following conclusion: > - We are not obligated to support objects that large, C11 5.2.4.1/1 only > requires that we support objects of size 65535! Right, the standard doesn't require it. But I guess you don't imply that it's fine for clang to silently miscompile

Hi I come across the following exception when I use the llvm-dwarfdump -debug-info target_binary: llvm-dwarfdump: /home/linux/llvm-7/llvm/lib/MC/MCRegisterInfo.cpp:87: int llvm::MCRegisterInfo::getLLVMRegNum(unsigned int, bool) const: Assertion `I != M+Size && I->FromReg == RegNum && "Invalid RegNum"' failed. Stack dump: 0. Program arguments:

That source file was removed from LLVM in r232397 on March 16, 2015. It looks like lljvm hasn't been updated in a long time. LLVM's C++ APIs are not stable, so there is no expectation that a project built against LLVM's C++ API in 2015 would build or reasonably function against LLVM trunk. The project probably works against LLVM 3.6.2 which was (I believe) the last LLVM release to

It seems MemorySSA.cpp is the only real code where we found the problem happening. Is it possible to change the source of MemorySSA.cpp to hide the problem and buy some time for now? Now we use an empty generic_def_path_iterator with Optional<ListIndex> N being initialized by None as the end of range. Can we initialize the Optional var with a special value instead of None?

On Mar 2, 2014, at 10:27 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > > On 3 March 2014

Hi Dave I am not going to access any hardware. I am using clang to analysis the ARM binaries. The binary is 483.xalancbmk in CPU SPEC2006. When I use the optimization O0, no crash will occur. The crash occurs when I set optimization level as O1,O2,O3 and Os. If I have to recompile and rerun the tests. What version of llvm is suggested. It would be better if anyone could provide the patch on this

I'm not sure what causes this. Everything builds fine in Release mode but when I try to do a Debug build I get an error in Transforms (which causes all dependant projects to fail as well). I'm not exactly sure what causes the error, I'll try to investigate tomorrow (unless someone can figure out what it is by then). Below is the output from VS: ------ Build started: Project:

> On Feb 2, 2019, at 8:18 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote: > > > >> On Feb 1, 2019, at 6:20 AM, Michael Platings via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> As application of the naming rules are currently under discussion [1] this seems like a good time

Chris Lattner wrote: > > inline IIty operator*() const { return BI; } > > inline IIty operator->() const { return operator*(); } > > > > So operator* works as if value_type is Instruction*, but operator-> works > > as if value_type is Instruction. Hmm ;-) > > Yeah, fishy huh? :) Yea, a bit. I've decided that before changing that I'd better