similar to: [LLVMdev] formal representation of data dependence

Hi, I don't find the formal definition of "declare", although it is used in ~300 hundred of places. Do I miss something? If it is not formally defined, should it be defined? Thanks. https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html -- Regards, Peng

This commit adds a formal specification of tvdiff_usec and a partial specification of subtract_timeval. These may be proved using Frama-C. The existing functions ignored overflow, but it is possible to call the functions with parameters that will cause overflow. So to create a formal specification I had to modify the functions to signal overflow. Luckily GCC and Clang have convenient

Hello, I am writing an extension that requires the user to pass a function into the C code. The function returns a covariance matrix. The user defines an arbitrary set of parameters as the function's arguments, which are used to construct this covariance matrix. Within the C code these parameters and hence covariance matrix are iteratively updated. The user's function might look like

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:57 AM, John Chambers <jmc at r-project.org> wrote: > > On Jan 28, 2015, at 6:37 PM, Michael Lawrence <lawrence.michael at gene.com> wrote: > >> At this point I would just due: >> >> formals(body(method)[[2L]]) >> >> At some point we need to figure out what to do with this .local() confusion. > > Agreed, definitely.

At this point I would just due: formals(body(method)[[2L]]) At some point we need to figure out what to do with this .local() confusion. On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Roebuck,Paul L <PLRoebuck at mdanderson.org> wrote: > I'm attempting to reflect the information for use with corresponding > fields in GUI (in a different package), to provide default values, > argname

I am running the nnet package as > neural.soft<-nnet(custcat~region+ed+marital+tenure+age+address+income,size=3,softmax=TRUE) This returns the error message : formal argument "softmax" matched by multiple actual arguments Here the dependent variable "custcat" is a factor with 4-levels. This error does not crop up for any other arguments of nnet(), including

Hi, very sporadic and non-reproducible, I get the following type of errors: Error in get(name, envir = envir) : formal argument "envir" matched by multiple actual arguments Error in exists(cacheName, envir = envir, inherit = FALSE) : formal argument "envir" matched by multiple actual arguments Error in paste(..., sep = sep) : formal argument "sep" matched by

I'd just like to thank everyone who replied on this; the suggestions and resources are very helpful! ~Scott On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Andrew Santosa <santosa_1999 at yahoo.com> wrote: > LLBMC http://llbmc.org uses bounded model checking technique to find > errors in LLVM IR. > Model checking is essentially search, and since LLBMC is bounded, the > search for errors

can we assume that for(Function::aiterator I = F.abegin(); E = F.aend(); I!=E; ++I) { .... } or Argument *FA = &F.afront(); do { FA = FA->getNext(); .... } while (FA != &F.aback()); would iterate over function "F" formal parameters in order? All the tests I've run so far indicate so, but unless it is guaranteed, I don't see how can I match

I want to add an argument if it is not present. Following the Green Book, p. 337: test <- function(x, ...){ dots <- list(...) if (!hasArg(from)) from <- 0 else from <- dots$from curve(x, from=from, ...) } > test(sin) > test(sin, from=4) Error in curve(x, from = from, ...) : formal argument "from" matched by multiple actual arguments The FAQ says, in

I recently subscribed and saw in the archive that Eric Astor was asking for a formal grammar (unlikely the first time for such request.) Currently there are a few problems in making such a thing so I was curious if Mr. Gruber has made any thoughts about moving toward one? This would also allow a more ?clean? parser which would get rid of some of the current problems (bad nesting[^1],

Dear list I am having trouble with handling a downloaded R Code. I tried to run the code using File\Source R Code...\ after loading values for the variables mentioned in the argument. Now I am getting the error message as follows: "Repeated formal argument". Kindly help me solve this problem. It is need less to say that I am a new user to R. with thanks Pushparaj -- View this message in

Our target also use different registers for pointer and non-pointer parameters. > If you need llvm::Argument, this returns the iterator pointing to the > first argument: DAG.getMachineFunction().getFunction() only works in LowerFormalArguments (there it returns the callee), not in LowerCall (where it returns the caller, rather than the callee). You need to pass more information about the

I think I understand what you're saying now, but I'm still kind of missing the benefit from the approach. As far as I can tell just giving foo formals for the arguments you want it to catch gives you the end result you want, doesn't it? And if the generic has ... in it, you can (if you're very careful) add formals to specific methods that would capture arguments not meant for

Dear list, This probably makes perfect sense from the language designers' perspective, but at least for me this was/is quite an interesting and unexpected behavior which I thought might be worth sharing: The default value of argument |where|in function |getClasses()|seems to vary depending on whether |getClasses()|is called inside a *standard R function*or a *formal S4 method*. It is

I wouldn't want to add more to the current approach; if someone would like to devote some time, the much preferable idea IMO would be to replace the whole mechanism. Here's one suggestion: 1. have a class, say "nonConformingMethod" for method definitions that diverge in the argument list. 2. the internal dispatch code checks the class of the selected definition (this can

I just discovered what seems to me to be a slight funny in respect of formal argument names. If I define a function foo <- function(a,b){ ... whatever ...} then ``inside'' foo() the exists() function will return TRUE from ``exists("a") whether an object named ``a'' exists or not. But get("a") will yield an error ``object "a" not found''

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pekka Jääskeläinen" <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> > To: "Tobias Grosser" <tobias at grosser.es> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 11:49:03 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] parallel loop metadata simplification > > On 03/03/2013 06:43 PM, Tobias Grosser wrote: > > Very good

Hi, How can I get the llvm-type of the formal argument while lowering it ? My target needs to map pointer and non-pointer parameters to different registers. In addition, parameter lowering is address space dependent (another reason why I need such information). Looking at the DAGBuilder, I found that it is dropping it when translating llvm-types to BE types. Even if the base type is saved

Using the '@' operator, I am able to extract a 'names' attribute assigned to a formal object. However, I can not use the replacement form ('@<-') to assign that attribute. > setClass("foo", representation("numeric")) [1] "foo" > (new("foo", 1:4)->a) An object of class ?foo? [1] 1 2 3 4 > names(a) <-