I'm not on the computer right night, but I think that instead of 1.0 it should be something like LLVM::Double.new(1.0) or something similar (check which class is an llvm double... you need to pass an instance of an llvm value, not a ruby value). By the way, stumbled upon this error many times. I think a ruby double should be accepted.
On Feb 22, 2012 10:46 PM, "Douglas Camata" <d.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
Just to complement: already trying changing LLVM:Double.type just to LLVM::Double and it didn't work too.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Douglas Camata <d.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Another noob ques...
Ummm... I think LLVM::Int64.new or similar... maybe just LLVM::Int64(1.0)
On Feb 22, 2012 10:50 PM, "Ary Borenszweig" <a...@esperanto.org.ar> wrote:
I'm not on the computer right night, but I think that instead of 1.0 it should be something like LLVM::Double.new(1.0) or something similar (check which class is an llvm double... you need to pass an instance of an llvm value, not a ruby value). By the way, stumbled upon this error many times. I think a ruby double should be accepted.
>
> On Feb 22, 2012 10:46 PM, "Douglas Camata" <d.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just to complement: ...