similar to: [LLVMdev] [RFC] New command line parsing/generating framework for clang and lld.

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: > LLVM Command Line Library > > I'm proposing a heavy weight command line parsing and generating library for > LLVM to replace Clang's parser and provide one for lld and any future tools > that may need it. > > The scope of this library is slightly larger than what Clang has now,

Hi all, I am having some problem using the Function class. For my application, FunctionType is not known at the time I initialize the function. So, I just initialize the Function as return type void with no arguments. As I work on my function, I get to know the arguments and I insert the arguments in ArgumentList data structure of the function. The FunctionType is defined as const and I can't

Hi, I am doing a project involving checking a called specific function’s argument. Suppose that the function is int f(const char* str). When I am analyzing such a snippet: f("hello") , then compiled by Clang, I will have the “hello” as a *Constant Array* in the IR code. My goal is to call APIs of LLVM to get the “hello” from IR code. Now suppose the I got the llvm::Function* fn from

I am trying to generate a simple wrapper function: Function* pWrapper = m_module.getOrInsertFunction(name, FunctionType::get(Type::VoidTy, vector<const Type*>(1, PointerType::get(Type::IntTy)), false)); How do I actually get the Value* for the one argument to this function? The pWrapper->getArgumentList().size() is 0. Shouldn't the argument list contain the Value*

Just a followup for the archives ... > I am trying to generate a simple wrapper function: > > Function* pWrapper = m_module.getOrInsertFunction(name, > FunctionType::get(Type::VoidTy, > vector<const Type*>(1, PointerType::get(Type::IntTy)), false)); > > How do I actually get the Value* for the one argument to this function? > The

Hi, Today I've been trying to debug a weird bug that makes JIT crash with certain code and when using the inliner. This may sound weird, but if I disable the inliner, it doesn't crash. I include an example gdb dump below. Does something looks wrong? Do you think it's a bug in JIT or it's just some other piece of code that is writing on the JIT memory?.. I don't really know

I'm trying to create and insert a anonymous function that will make a assignment on a GlobalVariable, based on a existing StoreInst. Once I find this StoreInst(which provides me with 2 Value* objects for me to use) I need to pass it to my anonymous function so it can carry out the assignment. I can not get the correct types, at runtime I get a bad signature error. So basically the function is

Hey All, I’m working with Mac OS X 10.10, and everything seems generally fine but when I started working on a FunctionPass I get the following: error: call to deleted constructor of 'Function::ArgumentListType' (aka 'iplist<llvm::Argument>') Function::ArgumentListType argList = f.getArgumentList(); Any pointers as to the correct way access the Arguments of a

Che-Liang Chiou <clchiou at gmail.com> writes: > My purpose is to eliminate copy-paste style of programming in td files > as much as possible, but only to a point that the new language > constructs do not create too much overhead/readability-downgrade. Yes! > In other words, I am targeting those low-hanging fruit of copy-paste > programmings in td files that are eliminated

David and Che-Liang, thank you for your hard work on this. Let me clarify what we may accept and what we cannot. Che-Liang, we cannot accept TGPreprocessor. Please revert it as soon as possible. The for-loop syntax is still being discussed, it's not yet clear what we will end up accepting. Please work with Jakob on this. David, we cannot accept the 'multidef' keyword. Please revert

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:05 PM, David A. Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: > Che-Liang Chiou <clchiou at gmail.com> writes: > >> My purpose is to eliminate copy-paste style of programming in td files >> as much as possible, but only to a point that the new language >> constructs do not create too much overhead/readability-downgrade. > > Yes! >

My purpose is to eliminate copy-paste style of programming in td files as much as possible, but only to a point that the new language constructs do not create too much overhead/readability-downgrade. In other words, I am targeting those low-hanging fruit of copy-paste programmings in td files that are eliminated by a simple for-loop syntax. The repetitive patterns I observed in PTX backend (and

I swear, I didn't touch it! I can't fit GLM's anymore, and I can't make it talk english (for googling the error messages) anymore. > y <- c(1,1,0,1,0,1) > x <- c(2,7,3,5,2,4) > glm(y~x, binomial) Fehler in runif(length(pi)) : Element 1 ist leer; Der Teil der Argumentliste 'length' der berechnet wurde war: (pi) > Sys.setenv(LANG="EN")

On Oct 6, 2011, at 12:42 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > Jakob Stoklund Olesen <jolesen at apple.com> writes: > >> On Oct 6, 2011, at 7:59 AM, David A. Greene wrote: >> >>> For example, I want to be able to do this: >>> >>> defm MOVH : >>> vs1x_fps_binary_vv_node_rmonly< >>> 0x16, "movh", undef, 0, >>>

On Oct 7, 2011, at 11:23 AM, David A. Greene wrote: > Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> writes: > >> David, we cannot accept the 'multidef' keyword. Please revert it. > > Working on it now. > >> We appreciate you thinking ahead about MIC, but we are against the >> massive refactoring and complicated abstraction scheme. We'll never >>

>From my understanding, NAME is a special builtin entry and dedicated for things related multiclass, So, is the following rewrite what you want? class Base<int V> { int Value = V; } class Derived<string Truth> : Base<!if(!eq(Truth, "true"), 1, 0)>; multiclass Derived_m<string T> { def #NAME# : Derived<T>; } defm TRUE :

Trying to resolve some general tablegen questions. Consider the test case for Tablegen called eq.td class Base<int V> { int Value = V; } class Derived<string Truth> : Base<!if(!eq(Truth, "true"), 1, 0)>; def TRUE : Derived<"true">; def FALSE : Derived<"false">; If I process this through tablegen I get: ------------- Classes

Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> writes: > David, we cannot accept the 'multidef' keyword. Please revert it. Working on it now. > We appreciate you thinking ahead about MIC, but we are against the > massive refactoring and complicated abstraction scheme. We'll never > accept those patches. How about a less massive and complicated scheme? I think we can make

On Aug 1, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Jyotsna Verma <jverma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > Currently, we rely on switch tables to transform between formats. However, > we would like to have a different mechanism to represent these relationships > instead of switch tables. I am thinking of modeling these relations in > HexagonInstrInfo.td file and use TableGen to generate a table with

Dear r-helpers, I estimated a generalized additive model (GAM) using Hastie's package GAM. Example: gam1 <- gam(vegetation ~ s(slope), family = binomial, data=aufnahmen_0708, trace=TRUE) pred <- predict(gam1, type = "response") vegetation is a categorial, slope a numerical variable. Now I want to assess the accurancy of the model using k-fold cross validation. I found the