similar to: [DWARF5][SplitDwarf] question on using fsplit-dwarf-inlining option

Hi, I want to split a dataframe based on a grouping variable (in one column). The resulting new dataframes should be stored in a new variable. I tried to split the dataframe using split() and to store it using a FOR loop, but thats not working so far: df <- data.frame(A=c("A1","A1","A2","A2"),B=seq(1:4)) Fsplit <- function(x,y){ ls <-

For the example code below, int L = M + 10; for (k = 1 ; k <=L; k++) { dummy(); if (k < M) dummy2(); } , we can split the loop into two parts like : for (k = 1 ; k != M; k++) { dummy(); dummy2(); } for (; k <=L; k++) { dummy(); } By splitting the loop, we can remove the conditional block in the loop and indirectly increase vectorization

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Jun Lim via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > For the example code below, > int L = M + 10; > for (k = 1 ; k <=L; k++) { > dummy(); > if (k < M) > dummy2(); > } > , we can split the loop into two parts like : > > for (k = 1 ; k != M; k++) { > dummy(); > dummy2(); > }

On 2018-02-22 16:21, Roman Lebedev wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Jun Lim via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> For the example code below, >> int L = M + 10; >> for (k = 1 ; k <=L; k++) { >> dummy(); >> if (k < M) >> dummy2(); >> } >> , we can split the loop into two parts like :

Is -fsplit-stack option used anywhere? My wild guess is that with ld.bfd, the thinLTO link for the DSO does not bring in morestack.o from libgcc.a, but the hidden symbol is defined in lldb binary. David On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Aha - finally reproduced! The difference is using ld.bfd not ld.gold. With > that I

In uint64_t RTDyldMemoryManager::getSymbolAddressInProcess(const std::string &Name) { there is reference to morestack: #if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__) // __morestack lives in libgcc, a static library. if (&__morestack && Name == "__morestack") return (uint64_t)&__morestack; #endif #endif // __linux__ && __GLIBC__ On Mon, Oct 3,

Hello all, I am looking for feedback regarding implementation of the case folding algorithm for .debug_names hashes. Unlike the apple tables, the .debug_names hashes are computed from case-folded names (to enable case-insensitive lookups for languages where that makes sense). The dwarf5 document specifies that the case folding should be done according the the "Caseless matching"

On 30 January 2018 at 15:41, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On Jan 30, 2018, at 7:35 AM, Pavel Labath <labath at google.com> wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> I am looking for feedback regarding implementation of the case folding >> algorithm for .debug_names hashes. >> >> Unlike the apple tables, the .debug_names

On 30 January 2018 at 16:39, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil at redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 17:13:36 +0100, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev wrote: >> so I'm writing this email to see if there's anyone >> else interested in this topic, and to try to synchronize our efforts. > > I am sure interested in DWARF-5 .debug_names. I wrote its producer+consumer >

> On Jan 17, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Jonas Devlieghere via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > As mentioned by Adrian in the comment you linked, I too am looking at DWARFv5 > accelerator tables in LLVM. > > To give you some background: my motivation is that I want to upstream support > for (Apple style) accelerator tables in llvm-dsymutil, Some background for

Hello, I hope I will have time to help you with that. I discussed dwarfv5 .debug_names implementation with involved party from RH. Anyway even if can't help much could you keep me in the loop please? On 01/17/2018 07:13 PM, Pavel Labath via llvm-dev wrote: > Hello all, > > In <https://reviews.llvm.org/D41986#977215> it was brought up that > there are at least two parties

Thank you for all the responses. Unfortunately I wasn't able to make any progress on creating the patches today. I'll be sure to add everyone who expressed interest here to the phabricator diff once I have them ready. Jonas, do you have any dsymutil patches I can look at? I am interested in seeing what kind of interfaces are you using, particularly on the reading side. I think the current

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > What is the linker command line buidling liblldb.so? is libgcc.a passed in? > There is no difference in the linker command for liblldb.so or bin/lldb between the ld.bfd and ld.gold cases, and neither links libgcc.a that I can see. The difference appears to be that the __morestack symbol is weak in

> On Jan 30, 2018, at 7:35 AM, Pavel Labath <labath at google.com> wrote: > > Hello all, > > I am looking for feedback regarding implementation of the case folding > algorithm for .debug_names hashes. > > Unlike the apple tables, the .debug_names hashes are computed from > case-folded names (to enable case-insensitive lookups for languages > where that makes

Hi Pavel, As mentioned by Adrian in the comment you linked, I too am looking at DWARFv5 accelerator tables in LLVM. To give you some background: my motivation is that I want to upstream support for (Apple style) accelerator tables in llvm-dsymutil, which is currently missing because the way they are generated is slightly different. As this requires making changes the current code, I wanted to

> On Jan 18, 2018, at 7:52 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Thank you for all the responses. Unfortunately I wasn't able to make > any progress on creating the patches today. I'll be sure to add > everyone who expressed interest here to the phabricator diff once I > have them ready. > > Jonas, do you have any dsymutil

FWIW I'm completely on board with everything Adrian has said in this thread :) -eric On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:00 AM Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Jan 17, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Jonas Devlieghere via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > As mentioned by Adrian in the comment you linked, I too

Hi Teresa, Thanks for the detailed reply! > How are you creating your bitcode files? I create the bitcode with `-flto=thin -c` and sure it has a GLOBALVAL_SUMMARY_BLOCK. And there’s no RegularLTO partition only ThinLTO bicode. > Where is it aborting in the backend? It aborts at ` report_fatal_error("Failed to setup codegen")` in of codegen() of LTOBackend.cpp. And before that in

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 17:13:36 +0100, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev wrote: > so I'm writing this email to see if there's anyone > else interested in this topic, and to try to synchronize our efforts. I am sure interested in DWARF-5 .debug_names. I wrote its producer+consumer for GDB (but not producing/using DW_IDX_DIE_offset as GDB cannot use it). > 1. add .debug_names support to

Hello all, In <https://reviews.llvm.org/D41986#977215> it was brought up that there are at least two parties interested in having DWARF5 accelerator tables implemented, so I'm writing this email to see if there's anyone else interested in this topic, and to try to synchronize our efforts. Our interest for this stems from a desire to make dwarf parsing fast on non-apple targets