similar to: [LLVMdev] clang -ast-dump-xml....

Dear List, I have examined the sp, maptools, and shapefiles packages (Windows) but cannot seem to figure out a solution for writing shapefiles for 'curvy shapes'. The scenario is that I generate a series of polygons, circles, and ellipses on a plot and would like to convert them to shapefiles. Since the circles and ellipses are do not return a coordinate list during the plotting

Dear List, Running on a PC (Windows 2000) with 256 MB RAM, Version R1.9.1 I have a relatively simple problem, which I can solve for relatively small datasets, but run into difficulties with larger ones. I believe that my approach is a hack rather than something elegant and I was hoping that somebody on this list might help me improve my code. Basically, given a vector of values (e.g.,

Hello list members, I am working with simulated data for landscape pattern analysis. I have 1000 replicates of binary (2 colour) gridded landscapes at each combination of 9 levels of class proportion and 11 levels of spatial autocorrelation. The results are stored in an array as follows: > dim(surfaces) [1] 38 9 11 1000 The dimensions are defined as follows: [x,,,] 1:38, integers

Dear List, I have just compiled my first R library for submission to CRAN; however, I have a tiny problem with 'R CMD check' that is holding me back. I have read extensively the PDF document on Writing R Extensions and the 'Making R Packages Under Windows' tutorial by P. Rossi. All functions are given in R code (no C/C++/Fortran) with two very simple demonstration datasets. My

Hi, ActiveRecord does not currently support tables that have only a primary key. This seems to be a needed feature as evidenced by the tickets: http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/6187 http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/6319 http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/7877 The update case is easily fixed by just not running the query when there are no columns to update. But the create case is problematic

2013/11/21 Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com> > wrote: > > Eric, David, > > > > 2013/11/19 Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com>: > >> Attached is a slightly updated patch. > >> (it doesn't include D2222 yet). > > > > The new

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com> wrote: > > > > 2013/12/3 Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Probably the same structure that we've been going down via >> >> lib/DebugInfo/. A set of files than handle reading and parsing and >> >>

Hi Timur, I myself find the name "Win32" pretty confusing and easy to misuse (especially for someone who assumes that windows == msvc). After all mingw and cygwin is also win32. Maybe we should rename it into isTargetMSVC or something like this? On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com> wrote: > Anton, > > What do you think? > >

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com> wrote: > Eric, David, > > 2013/11/19 Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com>: >> Attached is a slightly updated patch. >> (it doesn't include D2222 yet). > > The new version of the patch stopped fitting into the llvmdev 100K limit, > so I've uploaded it to

Hi Anton, >From my perspective Win32 is the windows ABI and mingw and cygwin are their own ABIs especially as we're not targeting the MSVC abi, it's just the windows abi? -eric On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <asl at math.spbu.ru>wrote: > Hi Timur, > > I myself find the name "Win32" pretty confusing and easy to misuse > (especially

Anton, What do you think? 2013/3/20 Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>: > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com> > wrote: >> >> 2013/3/20 Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com>: >> > Anton, >> > >> > [+Eric, Nick, >> > the e-mail thread context has been broken a

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com>wrote: > 2013/3/20 Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com>: > > Anton, > > > > [+Eric, Nick, > > the e-mail thread context has been broken a few times, so you should > > probably look at the llvmdev archives. > > It all starts here: > >

2013/12/3 Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> > >> > > >> > >> Probably the same structure that we've been going down via > >> lib/DebugInfo/. A set of files than handle reading and parsing and > >> both some binary files and some files produced by the backend. > > > > > > Ooph, that's a big one. > > Any

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com> wrote: > 2014-10-23 11:34 GMT-07:00 Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>: >> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com> wrote: >>> I don't think this is the right approach. >>> >>> Currently we intentionally define malloc etc

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <asl at math.spbu.ru> wrote: >>>> b) Should I be altering CC_X86_32_ThisCall >>>> OR should I introduce CC_X86_Win32_ThisCall instead? >>>> [Answer not clear to me - is there any platform besides Windows >>>> that uses thiscall?] >>> no >> Can you please clarify which

Eric, David, 2013/11/19 Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com>: > Attached is a slightly updated patch. > (it doesn't include D2222 yet). The new version of the patch stopped fitting into the llvmdev 100K limit, so I've uploaded it to http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2232 (you need to apply D2222 first if you'd like to give D2232 a try) > 2013/11/19 Eric

>> > >> >> Probably the same structure that we've been going down via >> lib/DebugInfo/. A set of files than handle reading and parsing and >> both some binary files and some files produced by the backend. > > > Ooph, that's a big one. > Any more tips to prioritize diving into this codebase? > It mostly uses libObject to do the initial read

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 8:28 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com> wrote: >>> [+cfe-dev as this does seem like both LLVM+Clang issue] >>> [Sorry for an incomplete e-mail context,

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com> wrote: > I don't think this is the right approach. > > Currently we intentionally define malloc etc without changing the > names and (when stuff works ok) the linker just links all the mem > allocator calls with calls to our RTL. This is kind of a link-time > interception. How could that work

In general I do think we're going to need to abstract it out as much as possible. I'm not sure what the previous patch looks like, but abstracting the interface out would be general goodness for this. We can talk about designs for that as we move on. As far as how to migrate the decision down we can have it both as an option to code gen maybe or, for now, make it dependent upon triple. The