llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `llvm-x86_64-debian-dylib`
running on `gribozavr4` while building `clang` at step 6
"test-build-unified-tree-check-clang".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/60/builds/25516
Here is the r
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `clang-x86_64-debian-fast`
running on `gribozavr4` while building `clang` at step 6
"test-build-unified-tree-check-all".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/56/builds/24173
Here is the rel
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder
`clang-cmake-x86_64-avx512-linux` running on `avx512-intel64` while building
`clang` at step 7 "ninja check 1".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/133/builds/14998
Here is the relevant pi
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `fuchsia-x86_64-linux`
running on `fuchsia-debian-64-us-central1-b-1` while building `clang` at step 4
"annotate".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/11/builds/13648
Here is the relevant
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `llvm-clang-aarch64-darwin`
running on `doug-worker-4` while building `clang` at step 6
"test-build-unified-tree-check-all".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/190/builds/18865
Here is th
https://github.com/hnrklssn edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137078
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `llvm-clang-x86_64-sie-win`
running on `sie-win-worker` while building `clang` at step 7
"test-build-unified-tree-check-all".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/46/builds/15667
Here is th
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder
`openmp-offload-amdgpu-runtime-2` running on `rocm-worker-hw-02` while building
`clang` at step 7 "Add check check-clang".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/10/builds/4024
Here is the re
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `clang-aarch64-quick`
running on `linaro-clang-aarch64-quick` while building `clang` at step 5 "ninja
check 1".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/65/builds/15716
Here is the relevant pie
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `lldb-aarch64-ubuntu`
running on `linaro-lldb-aarch64-ubuntu` while building `clang` at step 6 "test".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/59/builds/16533
Here is the relevant piece of the
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder
`openmp-offload-sles-build-only` running on `rocm-worker-hw-04-sles` while
building `clang` at step 6 "Add check check-clang".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/140/builds/21837
Here is
@@ -119,6 +119,15 @@ constexpr auto b3 = name1() == name1(); // ref-error
{{must be initialized by a
constexpr auto b4 = name1() == name2();
static_assert(!b4);
+constexpr auto bar(const char *p) { return p + __builtin_strlen(p); }
+constexpr auto b5 = bar(p1) == p1;
+static_
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder
`llvm-clang-x86_64-sie-ubuntu-fast` running on `sie-linux-worker` while
building `clang` at step 6 "test-build-unified-tree-check-all".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/144/builds/23465
https://github.com/hnrklssn closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137078
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -119,6 +119,15 @@ constexpr auto b3 = name1() == name1(); // ref-error
{{must be initialized by a
constexpr auto b4 = name1() == name2();
static_assert(!b4);
+constexpr auto bar(const char *p) { return p + __builtin_strlen(p); }
+constexpr auto b5 = bar(p1) == p1;
+static_
zygoloid wrote:
Yeah. I agree that using the overlap diagnostic only in the case where there's
at least one byte of potential overlap (as this PR does) is best.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137078
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@
hnrklssn wrote:
> Thanks for the fix!
>
> I was wondering if the new code paths should actually return `true` not
> `false`, but I think it makes sense that for a comparison like `"hello" + 6
> == "world"`, we say that the strings are _not_ potentially-overlapping but we
> instead detect the
https://github.com/zygoloid approved this pull request.
Thanks for the fix!
I was wondering if the new code paths should actually return `true` not
`false`, but I think it makes sense that for a comparison like `"hello" + 6 ==
"world"`, we say that the strings are *not* potentially-overlapping
https://github.com/hnrklssn created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137078
When `ArePotentiallyOverlappingStringLiterals`, added in
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109208, compares string literals it
drops the front of the string with the greatest offset from its base point
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Henrik G. Olsson (hnrklssn)
Changes
When `ArePotentiallyOverlappingStringLiterals`, added in
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109208, compares string literals it
drops the front of the string with the greatest offset from its bas
20 matches
Mail list logo
