similar to: Fix clang's 'flatten' function attribute: add depth to always_inline?

Suppose that I have the following list of lists of frames 'root' (let's call it a 'tree' of frames). I want to flatten it to be a list of frames. However, if I unlist(root), it will flatten the frames as well. Is there a simply way to flatten the tree to certain depth? aframe1=data.frame(x=1:3,y=1:3) aframe2=data.frame(u=7:9,v=11:13) aframe3=data.frame(p=3:5,q=6:8)

Here is a proposal that I mentioned sometime ago. Any thoughts,comments or suggestions on this proposal would be appreciated. - Devang // = = =---------------------------------------------------------------------- ===// // Function Notes (or Traits) // = = =---------------------------------------------------------------------- ===// This document describes the

Hi Devang, I have a few questions below. On Aug 22, 2008, at 4:40 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > Here is a proposal that I mentioned sometime ago. Any > thoughts,comments or > suggestions on this proposal would be appreciated. > - > Devang > > // > = > = > = > ----------------------------------------------------------------------= > ==// > //

On Aug 22, 2008, at 4:40 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > The LLVM passes are responsible to take appropriate actions based on > Function > Notes associated with function definition. For example, > > define void @fn1() notes("opt-size=1") { ... } > > The function fn1() is being optimized for size without losing > significant > performance. The inliner will

So.. I have investigated more on how a new function attribute to disable optimization on a per-function basis could be implemented. At the current state, with the lack of specific support from the pass managers I found two big problems when trying to implement a prototype implementation of the new attribute. Here are the problems found: 1) It is not safe to disable some transform passes in the

Using GCC 3.4.6 20060404 (Red Hat 3.4.6-11) I've had this problem with the ALWAYS_INLINE directive in SelectionDAGISel.cpp: /arm/scratch/egrimley/llvm.svn/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp: In function `bool CheckChildType(const unsigned char*, unsigned int&, llvm::SDValue, const llvm::TargetLowering&, unsigned int)':

On Mar 15, 2009, at 6:16 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > Pierre Habouzit wrote: >> [ please CC: me as I'm not subscribed ] >> >> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 04:13:34AM +0000, bugzilla- >> daemon at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: >>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3756 >>> >>> Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> changed: >>> >>>

Pierre Habouzit wrote: > [ please CC: me as I'm not subscribed ] > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 04:13:34AM +0000, bugzilla-daemon at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: >> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3756 >> >> Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> changed: >> >> What |Removed |Added >>

[ please CC: me as I'm not subscribed ] On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 04:13:34AM +0000, bugzilla-daemon at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3756 > > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >

Dan Gohman wrote: > On Mar 15, 2009, at 6:16 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > >> Pierre Habouzit wrote: >>> [ please CC: me as I'm not subscribed ] >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 04:13:34AM +0000, bugzilla- >>> daemon at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: >>>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3756 >>>> >>>> Chris Lattner

Dropping opt level should not lead to ABI changes. Otherwise you won't be able to mix-match O2 and O0 objects either. David On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:59 AM, jahanian <fjahanian at apple.com> wrote: > Wouldn’t implementing this proposal be a red herring? By this I mean, it is > possible that > throughout the optimization phases, there is an implied assumption that all >

Andrea_DiBiagio at sn.scee.net wrote: > Hi, > > I previously made a proposal for adding a pragma for per-function > optimization level control due to a number of requests from our customers > (See http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.clang.devel/28958 for > the previous discussion), however the discussion was inconclusive. Some > of my colleagues recently had the

Hi, I previously made a proposal for adding a pragma for per-function optimization level control due to a number of requests from our customers (See http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.clang.devel/28958 for the previous discussion), however the discussion was inconclusive. Some of my colleagues recently had the opportunity to discuss the proposal with a number of people at and

On Jun 17, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > Dropping opt level should not lead to ABI changes. Otherwise you won't > be able to mix-match O2 and O0 objects either. I was referring to “static functions”. Not that it happens, but something to consider. - Fariborz > > David > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:59 AM, jahanian

Hi -- I have found a bug in an HPC code where llvm is vectorizing a loop on Skylake that has an obvious recurrence. I derived a small test case based on the original benchmark below: /*****************************************************************/ static void __attribute__ ((always_inline)) one( const int *restrict in, const int *const end, const unsigned shift, int *const restrict index,

Given the following C++ code: ``` // test.cpp struct Foo { int public_foo(); int outside_foo(); [[gnu::always_inline]] int inline_foo() { int x = outside_foo(); if (x % 17) { x += 1; } return x; } [[gnu::noinline]] int inline_bar1() { int x = inline_foo(); if (x % 23) { x += 2; } return x; } [[gnu::noinline]] int inline_bar2() {

I've just tested R-alpha_2005-03-31.tar.gz. ./configure and make ran without any apparent errors, but make check failed: 58 (0) $ make check 2>&1 | tee make_check-logg make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/local/src/R/R-alpha/tests' make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/local/src/R/R-alpha/tests' make[3]: Entering directory `/usr/local/src/R/R-alpha/tests/Examples' make[4]:

Wouldn’t implementing this proposal be a red herring? By this I mean, it is possible that throughout the optimization phases, there is an implied assumption that all functions are similarly optimized. An example would be under certain optimization flag, compiler changes calling convention of static functions. - Fariborz On Jun 17, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Andrea_DiBiagio at sn.scee.net wrote: >

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at googlers.com>wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com >

I am looking for a function to flatten a list to a list of only 1 level deep. Very similar to unlist, however I don't want to turn it into a vector because then everything will be casted to character vectors: x <- list(name="Jeroen", age=27, married=FALSE, home=list(country="Netherlands", city="Utrecht")) unlist(x) This function sort of does it: flatlist