similar to: [LLVMdev] "Bound Methods" in LLVM Bytecode

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Evan Jones wrote: > I have been thinking about efficient implementation of dynamically typed > languages in my spare time. Specifically, I'm working on a toy implementation > of a tiny piece of Python using LLVM as a native code generating JIT. I've Cool! > run into a bit of an issue, involving how Python deals with method calls. I'm > not sure

If I use a simple dtrace script such as this: fbt::somefunc:entry{self->trace=1;} fbt::somefunc:return{self->trace=0;} fbt:::entry{} fbt:::return{printf("%lx", arg1);} then it will descend to whatever depth is necessary If I want to limit it to say 3 functions deep, how can I do that? The quick answer I want to use is to do "self->depth++" on each entry and then

Hi, suppose I do: b <- matrix(1:9,3,3) bname <- "b" now dim(b) returns [1] 3 3 and dim(bname) returns NULL is there a function to pass bname to such that dim returns the dimensions of b? like dim(somefunc(bname)) returns [1] 3 3 does 'somefunc' exist? daver +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |David Richmond It

I created a plugin to add simple Annotations to VarDecls and FieldDecls, and write this modified AST out to a file. I notice that when I use clang to compile this file I get different code then when I use the source directly. In both cases I'm compiling with -O4. Can anyone explain this? Thanks define i32 @somefunc(i32 (i32)* %ptr) nounwind uwtable { entry: %ptr.addr = alloca i32 (i32)*,

> I created a plugin to add simple Annotations to VarDecls and > FieldDecls, and write this modified AST out to a file. I notice that > when I use clang to compile this file I get different code then when I > use the source directly. In both cases I'm compiling with -O4. Can > anyone explain this? This is how clang implements annotations on local variables, that's all.

Hi, I have migrated an LLVM front-end from LLVM 3.5 to 3.8 and now to 3.9 and ORC, and there is a concept which I could not transfer. Consider: extern "C" { void somefunc() {} } … auto llvmfunc = llvm::Function::Create(type, llvmFunction::PrivateLinkage, "bla", module)); executionengine.addGlobalMapping(llvmfunc, &somefunc); // now I have llvmfunc to work with and

David Chisnall wrote: >On 2 Oct 2012, at 03:26, Magee, Josh wrote: > >> 1) An address of a local variable is taken in such a way as to expose the >> address of a stack location. >> - Example: the address of a local on the RHS of an assignment, the >> address of a local passed into function. > > It also sounds like it would be triggered for a

All, Currently, the Win32::API.new method will search for the function name, then the ''A'' (ANSI) name, and finally the ''W'' (Wide) name. The code looks something like this: fProc = GetProcAddress(hLibrary, TEXT(RSTRING(v_proc)->ptr)); if(!fProc){ VALUE v_ascii = rb_str_new3(v_proc); v_ascii = rb_str_cat(v_ascii, "A", 1); fProc =

Reid, Thanks! You were right! Changing the code to: float (*theF)(float) = (float (*)(float)) EE -> getPointerToFunction(f); float retVal = theF(arg1); made the difference. Now it is dozens of times faster! I don't really understand the cause though.. Why doesn't ExecutionEngine cope well with "define float @someFunc(float %x)" and needs this trick ? (but copes well with

Dear all, ? I don't know if you consider this a bug or feature, but it breaks reasonable code: 'unlist' and 'sapply' convert 'ordered' to 'factor' even if all levels are equal. Here is a simple example: o <- ordered(letters) o[[1]] lapply(o, min)[[1]]??????????# ordered factor unlist(lapply(o, min))[[1]]? # no longer ordered sapply(o, min)[[1]]??????????# no

Hello, I'm not sure how to state my question in a technically accurate manner, so I'll use a short example to clarify my problem: Say I have a vector, vec<-c(1,2,3,2) I would like to be able to "reference" the vector by using the string containing the name of the vector - that is, I would like to know of some function which is able to convert the string "vec"

Dear All, For any given vector, I want to extract a sub-vector such that the new vector skips all zeros, if any , at the start of vector. Is it possible to achieve this w/o looping? E.G : > x = c(0,0,1,2,3,4,5,0,0,8,9) > y = somefunc(x); > y [1] 1 2 3 4 5 0 0 8 9 In the example above, I want to skip the two

> On Sep 10, 2018, at 5:25 PM, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sep 10, 2018, at 5:11 PM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com <mailto:preston.briggs at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> The phi instruction is irrelevant; just the way I think about things. >> The question is if the allocator believes that t0 and t2

Hi all, Hypothetically, suppose I have a generic system with multiple address spaces such that each address space is accessed using different instructions. Now suppose, I wanted to add a new keywords 'foo' and 'bar' to the front of c variables and function return types such that the following would be valid: foo void* a; foo void* somefunc(){...} bar int b; int somefunc2(bar

Copying the list on a discussion of potentially general interest.... From: Kaylor, Andrew Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 1:11 PM To: 'Ding, Wei' <Wei.Ding2 at amd.com>; Sumner, Brian <Brian.Sumner at amd.com>; Arsenault, Matthew <Matthew.Arsenault at amd.com> Subject: RE: clarification needed for the constrained fp implementation. Hi Wei, I've been meaning to

On Wed, 2015-08-05 at 10:02 -0400, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > > - at 5 = internal global [10 x i8] c"\22\D0\12\F4!\00\15\F9\EC\E1" > - at 6 = internal global [10 x i8] c"\D0\19\FB+\FD\F8#\03\E2\11" > + at 5 = internal global [10 x i8] c"\22Ð\12ô!\00\15ùìá" > + at 6 = internal global [10 x i8] c"Ð\19û+ýø#\03â\11" > > The diff

Hi, Using Chaitin's approach, removing a copy via coalescing could expose more opportunities for coalescing. So he would iteratively rebuild the interference graph and check for more opportunities. Chaitin was also careful to make sure that the source and destination of a copy didn't interfere unnecessarily (because of the copy alone); that is, his approach to interference was very

I have a use case where I would like to create an SEXP around an existing buffer that is managed by R, thus avoiding a copy operation. If I have something like: void *p = (void*) RAW(PROTECT(Rf_allocVector(RAWSXP, n))); ... additional maniupulation ... SEXP x = somefunc(SXPTYPE, n, p); // ???? Is there a "placement" constructor available? (I have arranged for the corresponding

Yes, I quite liked the things I've read about the PBQP allocator. Given what the hardware folks have to go through to get 1% improvements in scalar code, spending 20% (or whatever) compile time (under control of a flag) seems like nothing. And falling back on "average code" is a little disingenuous. People looking for performance don't care about average code; they care about

On 11/03/2017 05:26 PM, 陳韋任 via llvm-dev wrote: > > > 2017-11-04 4:29 GMT+08:00 Kaylor, Andrew via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>: > > Copying the list on a discussion of potentially general interest…. > > *From:* Kaylor, Andrew > *Sent:* Friday, November 03, 2017 1:11 PM > *To:* 'Ding,