similar to: [LLVMdev] How to handle nested procedures?

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Cohen" <jeffc at jolt-lang.org> To: <LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 7:35 PM Subject: [LLVMdev] How to handle nested procedures? > How would following Pascal code be translated to LLVM? > > procedure outer(a: integer): integer; > procedure inner(b: integer): integer; > begin >

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:35:35 -0500 "Patrick Meredith" <pmeredit at uiuc.edu> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Cohen" <jeffc at jolt-lang.org> > To: <LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 7:35 PM > Subject: [LLVMdev] How to handle nested procedures? > > > > How would following Pascal

Since llvm-gcc is a rather large code base, which I have never looked at (or even run), could you give me a starting point of where to look? One thing I'd be interested in knowing is whether the llvm.eh.exception() intrinsic can be called more than once in a landing pad. Say for example I have a nested try block, so that there are two landing pads, one for the inner try block, and one for

Hi Talin, > Since llvm-gcc is a rather large code base, which I have never looked at > (or even run), could you give me a starting point of where to look? I meant: compile some nested C++ with llvm-gcc to see what it does. Otherwise, look in llvm-convert.cpp, especially EmitLandingPads. > One thing I'd be interested in knowing is whether the > llvm.eh.exception() intrinsic can

I am having trouble with scriptaculous'' drag & drop here. I have a div that''s droppable, and two divs contained within that first div, each of which are also droppable. The containing (outer) div seems to grab all drops. Even though I defined the inner ones as "greedy" which is supposed to mean that draggables don''t propagate through. I read elsewhere that

Now that I've got exceptions working, I'm kind of wondering how to handle the case of nested "try" blocks. Say I have some code that looks like this: try { try { if (test) { // throw something } else { return; } } catch e:Except1 { } catch e:Except2 { } finally { } // more code... } catch e:Except3 { } finally {

Hello, This is a little off-topic. But I am writing a compiler to llvm ir for a language that admits recursive nested functions and am stuck as to how to translate them. Concretely, I'm trying to lift them all to the topmost level and pass all their free variables explicitly as arguments. To do this, I have to determine all their free variables in their bodies. In particular when I come

I'm having an issue where a certain set of types and insert/extractvalue are producing the incorrect values. It appears as though extractvalue getting my sub-structure is not getting the correct data. I have these types: %outer = type { i32, %inner, i1 } %inner = type { double, i32 } The trouble is that when I have a value of type %outer then proceed to extract the components of the

Thanks much sir Ease I think mainly adding a macvtap is pretty quick, performant and works. And last but definitely not least, ignorance of other quick easy solutions. Well, also macvtap works on older hardware where I don't have physical functions to passthrough via sr-iov, that is what you are pointing to with "macvtaps in the most outer one VM and pass them thru to inner layer

This is my simple code, my intention is to let the inner function browse the objects in the outer function. ####################### tk1 <- function() { tk2 <- function() { inner <- 3 list2 <- ls() #list objects in fuction tk2 print("**** inner objects ****") print(list2) #list objects in fuction tk1 list_parent <- ls(parent.frame())

I'm using R Version 2.6.1 under Windows XP. > search() [1] ".GlobalEnv" "s" "s" "package:cairoDevice" [5] "package:datasets" "package:foreign" "package:graphics" "package:grDevices" [9] "package:gWidgetsrJava"

I also saw this issue before. Llvm seems have trouble returning general struct values from functions. One easy workaround is to use packed struct type. Hope this helps. -Peng On Sunday, December 30, 2012, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > I'm having an issue where a certain set of types and insert/extractvalue > are producing the incorrect values. It appears as though extractvalue >

Hello, LoopSimplify try to separate a loop with multiple backedges into a nested loop (an outer loop and an inner loop). Naturally, this kind of a loop corresponds to a single loop in source code. I can see this could be useful for cases described in the comments in lib/Transforms/Utils/LoopSimplify.cpp, which looks like a corner case. For most cases, how does this help ? Junjie

Proposal for Outer Loop Vectorization Implementation Plan ============================================= ===== Goal: ===== Extending Loop Vectorizer (LV) such that it can handle outer loops, via VPlan infrastructure enhancements. Understand the trade-offs in trying to make concurrent progress with moving remaining inner loop vectorization functionality to VPlan infrastructure   ===========

To revive the discussion around vectorizer testing, here's a quick sample of a few of the issues hit recently in the loop vectorizer.  I want to be careful to say that I am not stating these are the result of any recent work, just that they're issues that have been triaged down to the loop vectorizer doing something incorrect or questionable from a performance perspective.

>Another might be to introduce changes under feature flags to ease the revert/reintroduce/revert cycle. This is essentially the first guard. We plan to have flags/settings to control which types of outer loops are handled. The new code path is initially exclusive to outer loop vectorization. If we disable all types of outer loops (and that's the initial default), LV continues to be good

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:09:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:34:57PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 03:02:12PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > commit 9e1a27ea42691429e31f158cce6fc61bc79bb2e9 > > > > Author: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck at redhat.com> > > > > Date:

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:09:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:34:57PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 03:02:12PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > commit 9e1a27ea42691429e31f158cce6fc61bc79bb2e9 > > > > Author: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck at redhat.com> > > > > Date:

I'd previously been working on the assumption that the frame_height was the height of the inner picture region... and height was the height of the outer frame. Then upon readnig the spec... where it calls the outer part the frame and the inner part the picture region... i assumed i'd made a mistake and that frame_width is actually >= width in the theorainfo structure... ie

Here's a fun spin on this same topic (I can't file a bug at this moment since llvm.org is down). Consider: define i32 @x(i32* %x, i1* %y) { entry: br label %loop loop: %v = phi i32 [ 0 , %entry ], [ %v.inc, %exit.inner ], [ %v, %loop ] %c = load volatile i1, i1* %y br i1 %c, label %exit.inner, label %loop exit.inner: %c1 = load volatile i1, i1* %y %x.val = load i32, i32*