similar to: [LLVMdev] Implementing closures and continuations

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 7:51 PM, David Farler <accumulator at icloud.com>wrote: > Hi all, > > In getting to know the LLVM infrastructure, I'm having a hard time finding > implementation details for closures and continuations. > > For closures, I've read comments such as "using a struct" as an > environment to hold references to free variables, linked

> On Jun 29, 2013, at 9:53 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 7:51 PM, David Farler <accumulator at icloud.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> In getting to know the LLVM infrastructure, I'm having a hard time finding implementation details for closures and continuations. >> >> For closures,

So I read the Kaleidoscope tutorial, big thanks to Chris Latter. Good pace, still excellent coverage. Just at the end it mentions closures and I was wondering how those are done in llvm. The link was to wikipedia, and i do know what closures/blocks/continuations are, (i think) but maybe someone could point me to where to read about how to do them in llvm. Thanks Torsten

On 26/01/13 19:20, Torsten Rüger wrote: [...] > Just at the end it mentions closures and I was wondering how those are done in llvm. > The link was to wikipedia, and i do know what closures/blocks/continuations are, (i think) but maybe someone could point me to where to read about how to do them in llvm. I've implemented closures in the past --- it's fiddly and a surprising amount

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Marc Ordinas i Llopis wrote: > Misha Brukman wrote: > >>1. Opcodes and intrinsics > >> > > That's not really correct. The intrinsics such as llvm.frameaddress and > > llvm.returnaddress have no equivalents in LLVM opcodes -- the meaning of > > the intrinsics is specifically machine-dependent, and LLVM (and its > > opcodes) are

Misha Brukman wrote: > >>1. Opcodes and intrinsics >> > That's not really correct. The intrinsics such as llvm.frameaddress and > llvm.returnaddress have no equivalents in LLVM opcodes -- the meaning of > the intrinsics is specifically machine-dependent, and LLVM (and its > opcodes) are machine-independent, so there is no valid interchange of > these intrinsics

I was trying to use closures within a library as follows - foo <- local({ # some code creating local variables function() { # uses the local variables created above }) It did not work because call to do_libfixup in library replaces all the closure environments by the global environment. One way around this would be to do the replacement only for closures that have the same

Full_Name: Keith Bare Version: 2.7.1 OS: Linux Submission from: (NULL) (128.2.134.48) I observed unexpected behavior attempting to use lapply to vary parameters in generated closures. All the generated closures ran with the last parameter value in the list. Here's a simple example: > funcs <- lapply(c("alpha", "beta", "gamma", "delta"),

Hi, I wanted to create a list of closures. When I use Map(), mapply(), lapply(), etc., to create this list, it appears that the wrong arguments are being passed to the main function. For example: Main function: > adder <- function(x) function(y) x + y Creating list of closures with Map(): > plus <- Map(adder,c(one=1,two=2))> plus$one(1)[1] 3> plus$two(1)[1] 3 Examining what value

A somewhat random question: I'm wondering if there's any kind of trick in LLVM that would allow me to implement closures efficiently. We can assume that a closure function has a hidden parameter which points to its environment, that is, the values of the variables which were in scope at the point where the closure function was defined. The problem comes when mixing closure and

Specifically, the srcfile attribute of the srcref attribute of the two instances of the functions contain different environments, AFAICT. Environments are compared only by exact pointer, so this forces return FALSE. Snippets from .Internal(inspect(x)) and .Internal(inspect(y)): @cca008 03 CLOSXP g0c0 [MARK,NAM(2),ATT] FORMALS: @604b58 00 NILSXP g0c0 [MARK,NAM(2)] BODY: @cc9650 06 LANGSXP

I'm confused by this: > identical(function() {}, function() {}) [1] FALSE Yet, after loading the Matrix package (which redefines det), the following is checked (in library.checkConflicts): > identical(get("det", baseenv()), get("det", asNamespace("Matrix")), ignore.environment=T) [1] TRUE I've looked at the code in identical.c and for closures it

>> 3. Is LLVM able to support advanced runtime features as continuations, >> garbage collection and resuming exception handling. Would there be >> anything in LLVM that would prevent these sorts of features? Is there >> anything in the LLVM runtime that is assumed (dynamic typing, etc). Or >> is LLVM as it's title sugests: Low-Level, so it won't get in your

On 7/24/19 11:54 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Previously closures had a crude flag which tells if they are > persistent or transient. Transient closures (flag = false) last for > the lifetime of the currently called libnbd function. Persistent > closures had an indefinite lifetime which could last for as long as > the handle. In language bindings handling persistent closures

The "R Language Definition" at http://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-lang.html states in the following section 4.3.2 Argument matching This subsection applies to closures but not to primitive functions. What are 'closures'? [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 04:46:39PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > We have a memory leak when a function with a closure exits early prior > to registering that closure through some path that will guarantee > cleanup. The easiest way to fix it is to guarantee that once a > closure is passed into a public API, it will be cleaned regardless of > whether that API succeeds or fails. But to

On 7/24/19 7:17 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > In preparation for closure lifetimes, split up the Closure so it no > longer describes a list of closures, but a single callback. > > This changes the API because functions which take 2 or more closures > now pass a separate user_data for each one. > --- > docs/libnbd.pod | 3 +- >

On 7/16/19 6:04 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > A Closure is a list of (usually one, but can be more) closures. In C > there is also a singe ‘void *user_data’ parameter which is passed by > the caller into the function and through as the first parameter of > each callback invocation. > > By grouping the previously separate Opaque and Callback* parameters > together we can

On 7/24/19 7:17 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Previously closures had a crude flag which tells if they are > persistent or transient. Transient closures (flag = false) last for > the lifetime of the currently called libnbd function. Persistent > closures had an indefinite lifetime which could last for as long as > the handle. In language bindings handling persistent closures

As promised in my earlier thread on libnbd completion callback question. Eric Blake (2): generator: Refactor handling of closures in unlocked functions generator: Free closures on failure docs/libnbd.pod | 2 +- generator/C.ml | 48 +++++++++++------ generator/C.mli | 1 + lib/debug.c | 7 +-- lib/opt.c | 31 ++++++-----