similar to: [LLVMdev] Why Is This Illegal?

On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote: > This patch adds support to walk through the free page blocks in the > system and report them via a callback function. Some page blocks may > leave the free list after the report function returns, so it is the > caller's responsibility to either detect or prevent the use of such > pages. > > Signed-off-by: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang

On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote: > This patch adds support to walk through the free page blocks in the > system and report them via a callback function. Some page blocks may > leave the free list after the report function returns, so it is the > caller's responsibility to either detect or prevent the use of such > pages. > > Signed-off-by: Wei Wang <wei.w.wang

On Wed 26-07-17 19:44:23, Wei Wang wrote: [...] > I thought about it more. Probably we can use the callback function with a > little change like this: > > void walk_free_mem(void *opaque1, void (*visit)(void *opaque2, unsigned long > pfn, > unsigned long nr_pages)) > { > ... > for_each_populated_zone(zone) { >

On Wed 26-07-17 19:44:23, Wei Wang wrote: [...] > I thought about it more. Probably we can use the callback function with a > little change like this: > > void walk_free_mem(void *opaque1, void (*visit)(void *opaque2, unsigned long > pfn, > unsigned long nr_pages)) > { > ... > for_each_populated_zone(zone) { >

On Wed 26-07-17 10:22:23, Wei Wang wrote: > On 07/25/2017 10:53 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Tue 25-07-17 14:47:16, Wang, Wei W wrote: > >>On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 8:42 PM, hal Hocko wrote: > >>>On Tue 25-07-17 19:56:24, Wei Wang wrote: > >>>>On 07/25/2017 07:25 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>>>>On Tue 25-07-17 17:32:00, Wei Wang wrote:

On Wed 26-07-17 10:22:23, Wei Wang wrote: > On 07/25/2017 10:53 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Tue 25-07-17 14:47:16, Wang, Wei W wrote: > >>On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 8:42 PM, hal Hocko wrote: > >>>On Tue 25-07-17 19:56:24, Wei Wang wrote: > >>>>On 07/25/2017 07:25 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>>>>On Tue 25-07-17 17:32:00, Wei Wang wrote:

Hello, Simply put, I'm trying to call a function "testme" with value "age=NA". I wish to use "dotlist<-list(...)" inside the function and have dotlist become: $age [1] NA I'm modifying existing code and need to minimize changing that code so it's easiest to conform how I call the existing function. My sample code fragment, results, and R.version

To all. I need your help. The big question is: How do I make an R library with Fortran 95 files? You may assume that I am a pretty decent programmer in both R and Fortran. I lay out a scenario and need your help! I know how to make an ordinary R package and have dabbled with R + Fortran 95 *.dll linking. I do not have a great handle on the whole Makevars file and whatever else I might need

On Thu 03-08-17 19:27:19, Wei Wang wrote: > On 08/03/2017 06:44 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Thu 03-08-17 18:42:15, Wei Wang wrote: > >>On 08/03/2017 05:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>>On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote: > >[...] > >>>>+static int report_free_page_block(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order, > >>>>+

On Thu 03-08-17 19:27:19, Wei Wang wrote: > On 08/03/2017 06:44 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Thu 03-08-17 18:42:15, Wei Wang wrote: > >>On 08/03/2017 05:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>>On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote: > >[...] > >>>>+static int report_free_page_block(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order, > >>>>+

On Thu 03-08-17 20:11:58, Wei Wang wrote: > On 08/03/2017 07:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Thu 03-08-17 19:27:19, Wei Wang wrote: > >>On 08/03/2017 06:44 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>>On Thu 03-08-17 18:42:15, Wei Wang wrote: > >>>>On 08/03/2017 05:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>>>>On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote: >

On Thu 03-08-17 20:11:58, Wei Wang wrote: > On 08/03/2017 07:28 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >On Thu 03-08-17 19:27:19, Wei Wang wrote: > >>On 08/03/2017 06:44 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>>On Thu 03-08-17 18:42:15, Wei Wang wrote: > >>>>On 08/03/2017 05:11 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>>>>On Thu 03-08-17 14:38:18, Wei Wang wrote: >

Hello, I would like to ask the llvm developers to have a look at http:// llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=918 . This bug has been reported 4 month ago but is none the less a somewhat serious one. Below I have pasted the test case and output of the issue running on my ppc machine. thank you Eric pb:~ eric$ cat testme.ll;llvm-as -f testme.ll;llc -march=c -f testme.bc;gcc -c testme.cbe.c

When I increased COLS to the point where the loop could no longer be unrolled, the selection dag code generator generated effectively the same code as the default X86 code generator. Lots of redundant imul/movl/addl sequences. It can't clean it up either. Only unrolling all nested loops permits it to be optimized away, regardless of code generator. Jeff Cohen wrote: > I noticed

Hi, Is there a way to modify the string such as char a or char b? Could I use the way like "Replace an instruction with another Value" in Programm Manual? In fact, what I am interested in is string with visible expression, not all string, and I am trying to hide the orignal string by using simple way like XOR.. Is there a way to reorder the basic blocks? Thanks. Qiuyu C Source

hi, I try to build hello.cpp using both llvmg++ and GNU g++, the generate llvm bytecode's size is about 960K, and the size of binary code generated by g++ is only 13K. Could anyone explain the difference between the two result? BWT: I rebuild the cfrontend in RH linux9.0, but when I build the hello.cpp the llvmG++ reports warnings too, it shows: ----------------------------- [yue at RH9

I have an objective-c file, bar.m, that I try to process in the following way generating the error shown below. Any help would be appreciated. I suspect the error is in the first few lines of output. thanks, Todd > cfrontend-g++ -o bar.bc bar.m > llvm2cpp -o bar.cpp bar.bc > g++ -c bar.o bar.cpp > ld -o bar bar.o -l objc -l LLVMCore -l LLVMSupport -l LLVMSystem > ./bar Global

I noticed that fourinarow is one of the programs in which LLVM is much slower than GCC, so I decided to take a look and see why that is so. The program has many loops that look like this: #define ROWS 6 #define COLS 7 void init_board(char b[COLS][ROWS+1]) { int i,j; for (i=0;i<COLS;i++) for (j=0;j<ROWS;j++) b[i][j]='.';

>Right. This looks like it's just a simple bug in llvm2cpp. >CppWriter.cpp:698 contains: > > if (CA->isString() && CA->getType()->getElementType() == >Type::SByteTy) { > Out << "Constant* " << constName << " = ConstantArray::get(\""; > printEscapedString(CA->getAsString()); > //

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:05:32PM +0300, Vladimir Merzliakov wrote: > >>Is assert(!NewSTy->isAbstract()) must pass after this line? > > > >In this case, yup. > > > I create test program and assert failed in it: > > { \2 *, sbyte * } How do I decode the \2 in this? I am creating types through this interface and I get quite a mess seen below. And this is