similar to: evaluating the contents of a string

Hi, I'm looking for a function which returns the name of the argument object as a string: >vect <- 1:3 >function(vect) "vect" I've looked at 'name', 'names', 'objects', none seem to do exactly what I want. ls/objects comes close, but I can't figure out how to force it to give me only one object name. daver

If I use a simple dtrace script such as this: fbt::somefunc:entry{self->trace=1;} fbt::somefunc:return{self->trace=0;} fbt:::entry{} fbt:::return{printf("%lx", arg1);} then it will descend to whatever depth is necessary If I want to limit it to say 3 functions deep, how can I do that? The quick answer I want to use is to do "self->depth++" on each entry and then

I created a plugin to add simple Annotations to VarDecls and FieldDecls, and write this modified AST out to a file. I notice that when I use clang to compile this file I get different code then when I use the source directly. In both cases I'm compiling with -O4. Can anyone explain this? Thanks define i32 @somefunc(i32 (i32)* %ptr) nounwind uwtable { entry: %ptr.addr = alloca i32 (i32)*,

Hi, I'm just wondering if it is planned to include the Lapack routine DGESDD (and friends) in R-1.4.0? This is faster (supposedly by a factor of ~6 for large matrices) than DGESVD which is currently (R-1.3.1) called by La.svd. And if it is not in the plans yet, is there a chance it could be? I've added it to my local version of R-1.3.1 and so far see a factor of 4 improvement over

> I created a plugin to add simple Annotations to VarDecls and > FieldDecls, and write this modified AST out to a file. I notice that > when I use clang to compile this file I get different code then when I > use the source directly. In both cases I'm compiling with -O4. Can > anyone explain this? This is how clang implements annotations on local variables, that's all.

Hi, I have migrated an LLVM front-end from LLVM 3.5 to 3.8 and now to 3.9 and ORC, and there is a concept which I could not transfer. Consider: extern "C" { void somefunc() {} } … auto llvmfunc = llvm::Function::Create(type, llvmFunction::PrivateLinkage, "bla", module)); executionengine.addGlobalMapping(llvmfunc, &somefunc); // now I have llvmfunc to work with and

David Chisnall wrote: >On 2 Oct 2012, at 03:26, Magee, Josh wrote: > >> 1) An address of a local variable is taken in such a way as to expose the >> address of a stack location. >> - Example: the address of a local on the RHS of an assignment, the >> address of a local passed into function. > > It also sounds like it would be triggered for a

All, Currently, the Win32::API.new method will search for the function name, then the ''A'' (ANSI) name, and finally the ''W'' (Wide) name. The code looks something like this: fProc = GetProcAddress(hLibrary, TEXT(RSTRING(v_proc)->ptr)); if(!fProc){ VALUE v_ascii = rb_str_new3(v_proc); v_ascii = rb_str_cat(v_ascii, "A", 1); fProc =

Reid, Thanks! You were right! Changing the code to: float (*theF)(float) = (float (*)(float)) EE -> getPointerToFunction(f); float retVal = theF(arg1); made the difference. Now it is dozens of times faster! I don't really understand the cause though.. Why doesn't ExecutionEngine cope well with "define float @someFunc(float %x)" and needs this trick ? (but copes well with

Dear all, ? I don't know if you consider this a bug or feature, but it breaks reasonable code: 'unlist' and 'sapply' convert 'ordered' to 'factor' even if all levels are equal. Here is a simple example: o <- ordered(letters) o[[1]] lapply(o, min)[[1]]??????????# ordered factor unlist(lapply(o, min))[[1]]? # no longer ordered sapply(o, min)[[1]]??????????# no

Hello. These patches add a new mode of operation for the sftp server. It is located between the ordinary, unrestricted mode and read-only mode. It allows you to add files to the server, but only if these files do not exist on the server before. Changes to existing files - are prohibited. Please review them, maybe these patches will be useful not only to me. Thank you. -------------- next part

i am having some problems with a program that i am writing and i think that knowing how the while command works will help me to figure out where i am going wrong *when do you get kicked out of a while loop?* (i.e., in the following example what would the final value of 'a' be?) i thought it would be 99 but running it in R i get 101 (and 101 for x too!) while (x <100) { for (i in

Hello, I'm not sure how to state my question in a technically accurate manner, so I'll use a short example to clarify my problem: Say I have a vector, vec<-c(1,2,3,2) I would like to be able to "reference" the vector by using the string containing the name of the vector - that is, I would like to know of some function which is able to convert the string "vec"

Dear All, For any given vector, I want to extract a sub-vector such that the new vector skips all zeros, if any , at the start of vector. Is it possible to achieve this w/o looping? E.G : > x = c(0,0,1,2,3,4,5,0,0,8,9) > y = somefunc(x); > y [1] 1 2 3 4 5 0 0 8 9 In the example above, I want to skip the two

> On Sep 10, 2018, at 5:25 PM, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sep 10, 2018, at 5:11 PM, Preston Briggs <preston.briggs at gmail.com <mailto:preston.briggs at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> The phi instruction is irrelevant; just the way I think about things. >> The question is if the allocator believes that t0 and t2

Hi, Is there a function func(x) where x is an array such that it returns a list of the indices of all non-zero elements of the array? for example: a: 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 func(a) returns two vectors r and c: r c 1 1 2 3 3 2 daver +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |David Richmond It works on a | + Dept. of Sociology complex scientific

Hello, I have been thinking about efficient implementation of dynamically typed languages in my spare time. Specifically, I'm working on a toy implementation of a tiny piece of Python using LLVM as a native code generating JIT. I've run into a bit of an issue, involving how Python deals with method calls. I'm not sure how/if I can implement this in LLVM. In Python, the following

Hi all, Hypothetically, suppose I have a generic system with multiple address spaces such that each address space is accessed using different instructions. Now suppose, I wanted to add a new keywords 'foo' and 'bar' to the front of c variables and function return types such that the following would be valid: foo void* a; foo void* somefunc(){...} bar int b; int somefunc2(bar

Copying the list on a discussion of potentially general interest.... From: Kaylor, Andrew Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 1:11 PM To: 'Ding, Wei' <Wei.Ding2 at amd.com>; Sumner, Brian <Brian.Sumner at amd.com>; Arsenault, Matthew <Matthew.Arsenault at amd.com> Subject: RE: clarification needed for the constrained fp implementation. Hi Wei, I've been meaning to

Hi, Using Chaitin's approach, removing a copy via coalescing could expose more opportunities for coalescing. So he would iteratively rebuild the interference graph and check for more opportunities. Chaitin was also careful to make sure that the source and destination of a copy didn't interfere unnecessarily (because of the copy alone); that is, his approach to interference was very