similar to: [LLVMdev] EXC_BAD_ACCESS: invalid MemoryBuffer from ContentCache::getBuffer

Hi, I've been checking out NUT with an OpenUPS board over the last couple of weekends, and have noticed that it doesn't seem to report sensible values. This lead me to investigate usbhid-ups and delve into various issues. As mentioned in a github issue, one of the problems is with the report descriptor - dumping this from the usbhid-ups debug output and picking through it reveals that

Hi, i am trying to run an ANCOVA and a bootstrapped ANCOVA analysis on a specific data set. I am using the ancova and ancboot functions as in the following code: setwd("C:/Users/User/Desktop/Rdatabilingualstudy2012") bilingualismdata<-read.spss("bilingualdataforconferences2012.sav", use.value.labels = TRUE, to.data.frame = TRUE)

Monitoring the input and output currents reported through upsc for an OpenUPS device suggests that it is an energy creation device - the power out is greater than the power into the system once the battery is fully charged. Analysis and measurement reveals several issues: 1. "UPS.PowerStatus.Output.Current" is scaled for NUTs "output.current" value, which should be the

As the title says, I want to apply a function (which itself returns a function) to a list (or vector), and get a list (or vector) of generated functions as the return value, but get unexpected result. Anyone with an idea about the reason of this phenomenon and a correct way to implement the requirements? Thanks very much :) -- Using GPG/PGP? Please get my current public key (ID: 0xAEF6A134,

make[4]: Entering directory `/usr/local/src/llvm-2.7/tools/clang/lib/Basic' llvm[4]: Compiling Builtins.cpp for Release build llvm[4]: Compiling ConvertUTF.c for Release build llvm[4]: Compiling Diagnostic.cpp for Release build llvm[4]: Compiling FileManager.cpp for Release build llvm[4]: Compiling IdentifierTable.cpp for Release build llvm[4]: Compiling SourceLocation.cpp for Release build

Hi, I was having a little trouble installing clang.... while llvm installs properly but clang gives this error on invoking make in Clang make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/na2271/Desktop/llvm-2.3-x/tools/clang/lib/Headers' make[2]: Entering directory `/home/na2271/Desktop/llvm-2.3-x/tools/clang/lib/Basic' llvm[2]: Compiling SourceManager.cpp for Release build SourceManager.cpp: In member

Hi all, I'm implementing interleaved source in assembly output. Early reviews raised the concern that the current implementation will be opening files (using a llvm::MemoryBuffer) that are likely to be in the memory of the front end (commonly clang but I think we want this to be front end agnostic). I'm now exploring ideas to avoid reopening files and let LLVM reuse the files the FE had

On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Manuel, > > On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:49 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> while working on tooling on top of clang/llvm we found the file system >> abstractions in clang/llvm to be one of the points that could be nicer >> to integrate with. I’m writing this mail to

Hi Manuel, On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: >> Hi Manuel, >> >> On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:49 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> while working on tooling on top of clang/llvm we found the file system

Sent from my iPhone On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:04 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > Hi Manuel, > > On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: >>> Hi Manuel, >>> >>> On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:49 AM, Manuel Klimek

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:04 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > >> Hi Manuel, >> >> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Douglas Gregor

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: >> Hi Manuel, >> >> On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:49 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> while working on tooling on top of clang/llvm we found the file system >>>

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: >>> Hi Manuel, >>> >>> On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:49 AM, Manuel Klimek wrote: >>> >>>>

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: >>>> Hi Manuel,

On 03/16/2017 06:22 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev wrote: >> On Mar 16, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Roger Ferrer Ibanez via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I'm implementing interleaved source in assembly output. Early reviews raised the concern > Is there a patch up for review? https://reviews.llvm.org/D30898

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at

2011/12/6 Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> > wrote: > >>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:33 PM,

On 2009-09-24, at 18:56, OvermindDL1 wrote: > Out of curiosity, what code in Clang is optimized by doing a pointer > derefence then compare to 0, rather then just comparing two points > directly? Does not seem that efficient when laid out like that, > which is why I am curious what code actually is helped by that > pattern? Consider parsing an integer: // With NUL

Hi, http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1MemoryBuffer.html shows "the file, and that this character will read as '\0'. " as a "verbatim text" box. This looks ugly and is probably a mistake. The attached patch removes this extra @verbatim ... @endverbatim from comments. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name:

I believe this assert is wrong since it checks memory outside of the buffer. It shouldn't make assumptions on how callers store the array. Yuri