similar to: [LLVMdev] Ideas for annotating types?

On 10 July 2011 19:47, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > However, I would imagine other uses for this facility. What this effectively > is "metadata for types", although unlike metadata nodes this data would be > immutable. Hi Talin, The new type system allows you to name types and, if I got it rght, that's unique and immutable. You could use that fact, plus

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Talin, > > Interesting post, > > On Jul 1, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Talin wrote: > > *Garbage collection is still way too difficult*. The biggest problem is > the inability to track SSA values - it requires the > > > *Light-weight coroutines* would be a "nice to have", as

<moving to llvmdev> On Feb 14, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Talin wrote: > A few additional thoughts on PR1210: > > I can think of three approaches to addressing this issue. The first approach is the one outlined in PR1210, which is to have the key have enough knowledge of the internals of the Type to be able to use the internal type array as the data for the key. > > The second

Hi there dear R users, Does anyone have any idea what the following error means and how to sort it out? Runtime Error! Program: C\Program Files\R\R-2.9.0\bin\Rgui.exe This application has requested the Runtime to terminate it in an unusual way. Please contact the application’s support team for more information. Here is the story: Running the same code, sometimes the error happens and other

On May 13, 2008, at 18:28, Dan Gohman wrote: > On May 12, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Talin wrote: > >> So the question is, what's the trade-off. In most languages that >> support exceptions, you tend to think of exceptions as expensive >> operations that should only be thrown if something truly >> "exceptional" happens. OTOH, the Java case is also made

Hi Talin, Interesting post, On Jul 1, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Talin wrote: > Garbage collection is still way too difficult. The biggest problem is the inability to track SSA values - it requires the > Light-weight coroutines would be a "nice to have", as would better concurrency primitives. These are things I could Tackling the "still way too difficult" and "should

So - here's a really modest proposal: Based on Renato's suggestion, there is a way to associate arbitrary annotation data with any LLVM type. So what I would propose as a first step is to simply replace (or perhaps supplement) the current llvm.gcroot() feature with a type annotation. That is, LLVM would only support roots that are allocas, just it does today. The backend code would not

On May 12, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Talin wrote: > So the question is, what's the trade-off. In most languages that > support > exceptions, you tend to think of exceptions as expensive operations > that > should only be thrown if something truly "exceptional" happens. OTOH, > the Java case is also made worse by the fact that a large part of the > time you'll be

On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote: > OK here's the patch for real this time :) > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > Here's a work in progress of the union patch. Note that the test > "union.ll" does not work, so you probably don't want to check this > in as is. However, I'd be interested in any

I know of the issue using vmware server 2.0.2 and centos 5.4, but is their any reason not to use the .rpm install of for centos? I have always used the .tar file but this time used the rpm and it appeared to install and not crash. I went ahead and did the glib correction but I was wondering if using the rpm was not the rght thing to do, Thanks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

This is related to the general question of efficiency of unwinds. I'm mulling over whether to use the Java-style or Python-style iterator protocol for my language. The Python style is to have a special exception (StopIteration) that is thrown when the end of the sequence is reached. The Java style is to have a separate "hasNext" method on the iterator object that says whether or

OK here's a new version of the patch - and the unions.ll test actually passes :) On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote: > > OK here's the patch for real this time :) >> >> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: >> Here's a work

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > >> The assertions in LLVM would be a lot more useful if they could print out >> not only the source code of the expression that failed, but also print the >> values of the various arguments. To that end, I

Dear R users, When I run the following code, R crashes: require(cclust) x <- matrix(c(0,0,0,1.5,1,-1), ncol=2, byrow=TRUE) cclust(x, centers=x[2:3,], dist="manhattan", method="kmeans") While this works: cclust(x, centers=x[2:3,], dist="euclidean", method="kmeans") I'm posting this here because I am not sure if it is a bug. I've been searching

The assertions in LLVM would be a lot more useful if they could print out not only the source code of the expression that failed, but also print the values of the various arguments. To that end, I have an idea for an improved assert macro which would use raw_ostream. It would look something like this: ASSERT_STRM(Ty == STy, "Expected " << Ty << " but got "

*Motivation & Abstract* It has been observed by a number of LLVM users that the current garbage collection framework requires frontends to generate complex and inefficient code. This is primarily due to the fact that only allocas can be stack roots - it is not possible to trace SSA values directly. Because of this limitation, a frontend wanting to support garbage collection has to manually

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > Can you explain how it avoids evaluating the arguments in the false case? I > looked at the code but it's pretty complex. > Essentially it expands to something like: !(Ty == STy) ? (void)0 : Voidifier() & llvm::dbgs() << ... where you have something vaguely along the lines of struct Voidifier {

"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor.com> on Tue, 2013/12/03 20:26: > On 10/24/2013 01:09 AM, Christian Hesse wrote: > >>> > >>> version 6.02-pre5 works, 6.02-pre6 does not. > >> > >> Struggled with git bisect, but finally succeeded: > >> > >> 8f470e7bfe75f6401f6c5432988c620b863ad274 is the first bad commit > >>

Hi, I have a smb pdc running which works quite well so far, and would like to know if this feature is possible. I have two locations, and I want all users to authenticate on Machine A. Howver there are some users that are closer to machine B, and I would like to be able to have the homes of those users on machine B rather than machine A (they should authenticate on machine A anyway). Is this

Here's a work in progress of the union patch. Note that the test "union.ll" does not work, so you probably don't want to check this in as is. However, I'd be interested in any feedback you're willing to give. -- -- Talin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: