similar to: Tablegen doc bug?

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Sky Flyer <skylake007 at googlemail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I don't find anything helping me understand the llvm bang operator. In the > llvm TableGen language reference, it only says: > > 'TableGen also has “bang operators” which have a wide variety of meanings:' > > I would be very thankful if someone can explain it

Hello. Are you aware of any document (preferably academic paper) describing TableGen's typing of the following fields used to describe Instruction: pattern, ins and outs. I found a few pages on TableGen, but none of them talking about these fields: http://llvm.org/docs/TableGen/LangRef.html http://llvm.org/docs/TableGen/LangIntro.html

Hello all, I don't find anything helping me understand the llvm bang operator. In the llvm TableGen language reference, it only says: 'TableGen also has “bang operators” which have a wide variety of meanings: *'* I would be very thankful if someone can explain it to me. e.g. what does "!strconcat" or "!if" mean? Cheers ES -------------- next part --------------

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Rail Shafigulin <rail at esenciatech.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Dylan McKay <dylanmckay34 at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Try visualising the DAG like this. >> >> ``` >> ---- GPR:$rA >> / >> set GPR:$rd ---- add >>

Thanks Meador, The confusion point for me is that, does ! as an operator (bang operator) add any meaning to the strconcat? On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Meador Inge <meadori at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Sky Flyer <skylake007 at googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > I don't find anything helping me understand

Hi. For weeks now I have problems compiling llvm from svn, compilation ends with llvm[2]: Compiling Lexer.cpp for Release build /home/borist/builds/llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l: In function 'int llvmAsmlex()': /home/borist/builds/llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l:278: error: 'PURE' was not declared in this scope /home/borist/builds/llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l:279: error: 'CONST'

Hello With the latest LLVM from Subversion (rev48737 from http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk) I'm getting make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/Lang/llvm/_Obj/lib/AsmParser' llvm[2]: Flexing Lexer.l llvm[2]: Compiling Lexer.cpp for Debug build /usr/src/Lang/llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l: In function 'int llvmAsmlex()': /usr/src/Lang/llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l:278: error:

On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 15:27 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 5/23/18 2:05 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > Convert the S_<FOO> symbolic permissions to their octal equivalents as > > using octal and not symbolic permissions is preferred by many as more > > readable. > > > > see: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/8/2/1945 > > > > Done with automated conversion

On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 15:27 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 5/23/18 2:05 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > Convert the S_<FOO> symbolic permissions to their octal equivalents as > > using octal and not symbolic permissions is preferred by many as more > > readable. > > > > see: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/8/2/1945 > > > > Done with automated conversion

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > Well, maybe, we should just change the Linux kernel instead of tweaking > our tokenizer too hard. > This is silly. Writing a simple and maintainable lexer is not hard (look e.g. at https://reviews.llvm.org/D10817). There are some complicated context-sensitive cases in linker scripts that break our approach

Is this the appropriate place for GSoC conversations? If I understand the proposal correctly, there should be a lexer (written in R) that exposes an API; that API would be used by segregated mini-parsers (Roclets) which do the dirty work of Roxygen -> {html, LaTeX, DocBook, ...} translation. The lexer should ship with a proof-of-concept Roclet. Have I missed anything?

On Thu, 2018-05-24 at 06:47 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 5/23/18 4:35 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 15:27 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > On 5/23/18 2:05 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > Convert the S_<FOO> symbolic permissions to their octal equivalents as > > > > using octal and not symbolic permissions is preferred by many as more

On Sunday 25 November 2007 05:28, Aaron Gray wrote: > > On Sunday 25 November 2007 03:42, Christopher Lamb wrote: > >> Try this google query. I know there's been some discussion/work on > >> OCaml and LLVM. > >> > >> site:lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev OCaml interface > > > > I just rediscovered the OCaml bindings in bindings/ocaml

>> I have a question also. You added -m elf_i386 to workaround emulation conflict issue in LLD, do you know >> does output produced by BFD boot fine after that change ? >Doesn't seem to affect BFD at all. Thanks ! ?George. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Dear All I have added the following line to /etc/shorewall/rules: ACCEPT net fw tcp 4662 However, the program aMule continues to give me the following error: NG : Your 4662 port is not reachable. Any further ideas? Thanks in advance, Paul

> Hmm..., the crux of not being able to lex arithmetic expressions seems to > be due to lack of context sensitivity. E.g. consider `foo*bar`. Could be a > multiplication, or could be a glob pattern. > > Looking at the code more closely, adding context sensitivity wouldn't be > that hard. In fact, our ScriptParserBase class is actually a lexer (look at > the interface; it

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Dylan McKay <dylanmckay34 at gmail.com> wrote: > Try visualising the DAG like this. > > ``` > ---- GPR:$rA > / > set GPR:$rd ---- add > \ > ---- GPR:$rB > ``` > > Each instruction forms a DAG with its operands being subnodes. > >

Is there a straightforward way to convert character information from decimal representation to the octal one used by R? I'd like something like a function ascii(number,base=10), such that > ascii(91) [1] "\133" I can easily do the mapping from 91 to 133, but what is a good way to operate on 133 to deliver "\133"? Would a lookup table be a better solution? David

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > Sean, > > So as you noticed that linker script tokenization rule is not very trivial > -- it is context sensitive. The current lexer is extremely simple and > almost always works well. Improving "almost always" to "perfect" is not > high priority because we have many more high

>Our tokenizer recognize > > [A-Za-z0-9_.$/\\~=+[]*?\-:!<>]+ > >as a token. gold uses more complex rules to tokenize. I don't think we need that much complex rules, but there seems to be >room to improve our tokenizer. In particular, I believe we can parse the Linux's linker script by changing the tokenizer rules as >follows. > >