similar to: union

Good morning and Happy New Year 2003! Let it be prosperous for both you and me! Below you see a very short version of my CV as of January 2003 for your kind consideration and update. Word, TXT, and PDF version of the complete CV are available upon request. Enjoy the economic recovery! Make it a great day: ZAR ================================================================= ZAR PETKOV,

THE CONTRARIAN BUY ALERT: RecycleNet Corp. Symbol - GARM (OTCBB-pink sheets) Recent Price - $.35 52 Week Range - $.12 - .75 Estimated Float - 4 Million Shares Outstanding - 78 Million Now that Microsoft and other Internet stocks have fallen, it's time to sift through the wreckage and look for treasure.

On Friday 02 January 2009 20:48:25 Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jan 1, 2009, at 6:25 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > >> Exactly. I'm not especially interested in C-style unions, I'm > >> interested in discriminated unions. But the actual discriminator field is > >> easily represented in LLVM IR already, so there's no need to extend the > >> IR to support

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 11:15:51AM +0000, Struan Bartlett wrote: > > On 03/03/2014 10:55, Martin Kletzander wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 10:47:03AM +0000, Struan Bartlett wrote: > >> On 03/03/2014 10:44, Martin Kletzander wrote: > >>> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 10:30:11AM +0000, Struan Bartlett wrote: > >>>> Hi Martin > >>>> >

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Talin wrote: >> > >> > It depends on whether or not unions can be passed around as SSA values >> or not. I can think of situations where you would want to.

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 10:47:03AM +0000, Struan Bartlett wrote: > > On 03/03/2014 10:44, Martin Kletzander wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 10:30:11AM +0000, Struan Bartlett wrote: > >> Hi Martin > >> > >> Thanks for your response. Here's the output of that grep: > >> > >> # grep ^flags /proc/cpuinfo | sort -u > >> flags

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Reid Spencer wrote: > As a side effect of bug 178 (Stacker not handling 64-bit pointers on > Solaris), I got thinking about a union type for LLVM. Is there any > good reason that LLVM shouldn't support unions? This is essentially a > structure that has its members all at the same address rather than at > sequential addresses. I know there are various

On Thursday 01 January 2009 00:57:50 Talin wrote: > Jon Harrop wrote: > > I think very few people are still using C-style unions so there is > > probably little desire to put them into LLVM itself. Class hierarchies > > and algebraic datatypes are much more common and use a different > > representation (that LLVM can already handle with bitcasts). > > Specifically,

Quick question - should unions enforce that all member types are unique? I realize that a union of { i32, i32 } doesn't make sense, but should the code actually forbid this? As far as constants go, as long as the initializer is an exact match for one of the member types, it should be no problem. On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On

I've "group" namespace and b2b mailbox under it. I'm unable to subscribe to it and deliver emails there. Here is my problem: if I create subfolder (lets name it "subf") under b2b mailbox I'm unable to subscribe to it until acl plugin is enabled. Even if I put dovecot-acl file in .b2b.subf folder with anyone full rights dovecot-acl-list doesn't get populated

D&B and DM Review present B2B CRM in Overdrive: The Revenue Impact of Optimal Data Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 Time: 2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. ET 11:00 a.m. - 12:00 a.m. PT Get your CRM system in overdrive by adding "high-octane data." CRM is completely dependent on the quality of information contained within. Yet, according to industry experts, poor data quality is the number one

I removed unions from mainline in r112356. -Chris On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Talin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:36 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > > >> used to make the code manipulating the union type "well typed". This > >> approach seems work very well, is

On Jan 1, 2009, at 6:25 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: >> Exactly. I'm not especially interested in C-style unions, I'm >> interested >> in discriminated unions. But the actual discriminator field is easily >> represented in LLVM IR already, so there's no need to extend the IR >> to >> support them. That's why I am only asking for C-style union

Last time I looked at the union stuff, I was trying to decide how to implement TargetData.cpp for unions, and whether or not to copy the way structs handled memory layout. Currently structs have an auxilliary data structure (StructLayout) that is used to cache the overall size of the struct and the offset of each member. In the case of unions, it doesn't need the offsets, since they are always

On May 5, 2009, at 8:09 PM, Talin wrote: > I wanted to mention, by the way, that my need/desire for this hasn't > gone away :) > > And my wish list still includes support for something like uintptr_t > - a > primitive integer type that is defined to always be the same size as a > pointer, however large or small that may be on different platforms. > (So > that

Dustin Laurence wrote: > On 01/15/2010 11:37 AM, Talin wrote: > >> Yes, that's closer to the frontend semantics: the variants of a >> union type don't have any natural ordering, so list semantics could >> cause problems. > > I agree. I probably shouldn't even comment, as I know so little about > LLVM. But I've hand-written a couple

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 12, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Talin wrote: > > > Here is the LangRef part of the patch. > > > +<p>The union type is used to represent a set of possible data types > which can > > + exist at a given location in memory (also known as an "untagged" > > +

On Jan 12, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Talin wrote: > Here is the LangRef part of the patch. > +<p>The union type is used to represent a set of possible data types which can > + exist at a given location in memory (also known as an "untagged" > + union). [...] This wording is somewhat misleading; memory in LLVM has no types. How about: "A union type describes an

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 16, 2010, at 12:38 PM, Talin wrote: > > > Here's the implementation of > ConstantUnion::replaceUsesOfWithOnConstant(). No tests yet :( > > Seems basically ok, please commit. > > I suppose that means that I'll have to send in the info to get commit access then :(

Talin wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Dec 30, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Talin wrote: >> >>> I've been thinking about how to represent unions or "disjoint types" >>> in LLVM IR. At the moment, the only way I know to achieve this right >>> now is to create a struct that is as large as the largest type in >>> the union and then