similar to: [LLVMdev] [RFC] C++11: beware unnecessary copies with auto

On 3 March 2014 01:48, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > I am not a C++11 expert, but I must say I was very glad for the hint Duncan > gave me. If there are no technical concerns, I am very much in favor of this > addition. +1 --renato

+llvmdev On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:15 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 03/07/2014 01:40 PM, Aaron Ballman wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >>>> I wonder if you could use 'auto const

Noticed a problem for a while - tests/testit.Rd, tests/ver20.Rd are removed on "make clean" unintentionally. This seems to come from a change in tests/Makefile.in, which adds the line: - at rm -f *.tar.gz *.Rd back in May 2012. ----------- commit c4d70254e7b7f9d7ed17faecfb3097195d852ddc Author: ripley <ripley at 00db46b3-68df-0310-9c12-caf00c1e9a41> Date: Sun May 27 09:04:41

Not sure who owns this bit of code, so sending this to the general list. It looks like there may be an unintentional fall through happening in the X86RegisterInfo::getCallPreservedMask function. http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/X86RegisterInfo_8cpp_source.html case CallingConv::Intel_OCL_BI

On 02/09/2017 6:57 PM, Rolf Turner wrote: > On 03/09/17 03:56, William Dunlap via R-help wrote: >> Is the reason you want a block comment containing code (as opposed to >> arbitrary text) that you want to be able to easily run the commented out >> code? If so the 'if()' construct has the advantage that you only need to >> change code at the start of the comment,

On 9 January 2011 00:07, Tobias Grosser <grosser at fim.uni-passau.de> wrote: > Matching the target vector width in our heuristics will obviously give the > best performance. So to get optimal performance Polly needs to take target > data into account. Indeed! And even if you lack target information, you won't generate wrong code. ;) > Talking about OpenCL. The lowering

I wonder if the 'sep' argument in reshape() is being ignored unintentionally: ## From example(reshape) df <- data.frame(id=rep(1:4,rep(2,4)), visit=I(rep(c("Before","After"),4)), x=rnorm(4), y=runif(4)) reshape(df, timevar="visit", idvar="id", direction="wide", sep = "_") id x.Before

Hi, all, Does R have a "const object" concept like which is in C++ language? I want to set some data frames as constant to avoid being modified unintentionally. Thanks! xiagao1982 2011-03-15 [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

On 03/09/17 12:29, Duncan Murdoch wrote: > On 02/09/2017 6:57 PM, Rolf Turner wrote: >> On 03/09/17 03:56, William Dunlap via R-help wrote: >>> Is the reason you want a block comment containing code (as opposed to >>> arbitrary text) that you want to be able to easily run the commented out >>> code? If so the 'if()' construct has the advantage that you

What guarantees does LLVM try to provide regarding source code compatibility? Case in point: rev 94686 (http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=94686) breaks any code that creates a JIT. For example, we used to construct a FunctionPassManager with a ModuleProvider, it's now to be done with a Module. I cannot ship source code for my own project that is compatible with both

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:32:00AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:24:02AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Yeah, this goes under the header: memory-barriers.txt is _NOT_ a > > specification (I seem to keep repeating this). > > Do we want this ? > > --- > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed,

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:32:00AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:24:02AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Yeah, this goes under the header: memory-barriers.txt is _NOT_ a > > specification (I seem to keep repeating this). > > Do we want this ? > > --- > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed,

On 01/08/2011 07:34 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 9 January 2011 00:07, Tobias Grosser<grosser at fim.uni-passau.de> wrote: >> Matching the target vector width in our heuristics will obviously give the >> best performance. So to get optimal performance Polly needs to take target >> data into account. > > Indeed! And even if you lack target information, you

Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> wrote: > +========== > +DISCLAIMER > +========== > + > +This document is not a specification; it is intentionally (for the sake of > +brevity) and unintentionally (due to being human) incomplete. This document is > +meant as a guide to using the various memory barriers provided by Linux, but > +in case of any doubt (and there

Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> wrote: > +========== > +DISCLAIMER > +========== > + > +This document is not a specification; it is intentionally (for the sake of > +brevity) and unintentionally (due to being human) incomplete. This document is > +meant as a guide to using the various memory barriers provided by Linux, but > +in case of any doubt (and there

On 8 January 2011 18:27, Tobias Grosser <grosser at fim.uni-passau.de> wrote: > OK. First of all to agree on a name, we decided to call the Polyhedral > analysis we develop PoLLy, as in Polly the parrot. ;-) Maybe it was a > misleading choice? I never realised... ;) Polly it is! > In general as I explained I agree that a three stage approach is useful, > for the reasons you

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:55 AM C Bergström <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Chandler - I do not want to derail, hijack or change the topic of this > discussion - Would you be ok with me going into specific examples? > IMO, no, I don't think that would be a productive direction. I also suspect it would have a high probability of (unintentionally) leading to exactly the

>> Also note that the documentation is unintentionally misleading. It's very confusing for http://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/LangImpl4.html to show "Last modified: $Date: 2007-10-17 11:05:13 -0700 (Wed, 17 Oct 2007) $" at the bottom, as if nothing had changed since then, when the code it displays is actually less than a week old... I guess the source code snippets are updated

On 6 January 2011 15:16, Tobias Grosser <grosser at fim.uni-passau.de> wrote: >> The main idea is, we separate the transform passes and codegen passes >> for auto-parallelization and vectorization (Graphite[2] for gcc seems >> to taking similar approach for auto-vectorization). I agree with Ether. A two-stage vectorization would allow you to use the simple loop-unroller

hello, browsing over the network has got the same access denied issue as when i do it via net use or run \\hostname\share greetings, herwarth -----Original Message----- From: samba-bounces+herwarth.heitmann=orangemail.nl@lists.samba.org [mailto:samba-bounces+herwarth.heitmann=orangemail.nl@lists.samba.org] On Behalf Of Louis van Belle Sent: 15 March 2006 16:31 To: samba@lists.samba.org Subject: