AaronBallman wrote:
> @AaronBallman sure. Should I still use http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/
> , or do I run the benchmark another way?
Sorry, your question completely fell off my radar! llvm-compile-time-tracker
would be fine, but even just a local test would suffice -- basically, I exp
https://github.com/vegerot updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97926
>From 7d221cbcf91248f44b016aea107109756fa9f785 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Max=20=F0=9F=91=A8=F0=9F=8F=BD=E2=80=8D=F0=9F=92=BB=20Copl?=
=?UTF-8?q?an?=
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 17:22:55 -0700
Subject: [
vegerot wrote:
@AaronBallman sure. Should I still use http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/ ,
or do I run the benchmark another way?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97926
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://list
https://github.com/AaronBallman commented:
Sorry for the long wait on this review! A related issue cropped up regarding
compile time performance of `-Wall`
(https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/105959) and it seems to be caused
by CFG creation.
I think we should run the test case from
vegerot wrote:
@mordante @AaronBallman This diff is ready for review 🙂
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97926
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/vegerot ready_for_review
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97926
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/vegerot updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97926
>From 55e3359cf82d766e8b361b6f167d6cc445853eb0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Max=20=F0=9F=91=A8=F0=9F=8F=BD=E2=80=8D=F0=9F=92=BB=20Copl?=
=?UTF-8?q?an?=
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 17:22:55 -0700
Subject: [
AaronBallman wrote:
> I'm pretty sure I enabled the warning correctly. @AaronBallman are we good to
> land?
Not quite -- it looks like this change is causing libc++ test failures that
were caught by precommit CI:
```
# |
/var/lib/buildkite-agent/builds/linux-56-59b8f5d88-jltnz-1/llvm-project/
AaronBallman wrote:
> I'm not seeing any compile time impact from dropping the `DefaultIgnore`s on
> warn_unannotated_fallthrough/warn_unannotated_fallthrough_per_function. So
> either it's free or I'm still doing something wrong.
> (http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=6d12b3
vegerot wrote:
I'm pretty sure I enabled the warning correctly. @AaronBallman are we good to
land?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97926
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
vegerot wrote:
> CTMark is not compiled with `-Wextra`, so we'd not get any useful data out of
> this patch. What changes does one have to do to enable
> `-Wimplicit-fallthrough` by default (not just for `-Wextra`)?
@nikic done! At
[vegerot/llvm-project/perf/add-implicit-fallthrough-to-wextr
nikic wrote:
CTMark is not compiled with `-Wextra`, so we'd not get any useful data out of
this patch. What changes does one have to do to enable `-Wimplicit-fallthrough`
by default (not just for `-Wextra`)?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97926
__
https://github.com/vegerot updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97926
>From 9640f00fac2be5984b6a0ee2f7f917a58f7e53d8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Max=20=F0=9F=91=A8=F0=9F=8F=BD=E2=80=8D=F0=9F=92=BB=20Copl?=
=?UTF-8?q?an?=
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 17:22:55 -0700
Subject: [
vegerot wrote:
> I would put up a branch on http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com (instructions
> in the `About` page) and see how this impacts compile times. We've always
> left diagnostics out of -Wextra that require a CFG, so getting performance
> measurements is important.
Thanks! The `Ab
AaronBallman wrote:
> @AaronBallman please review
>
> I don't know how to go about measuring if there even is a performance
> regression. How would I do that?
I would put up a branch on http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com (instructions
in the `About` page) and see how this impacts compile ti
https://github.com/vegerot updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97926
>From c05d739d105b76fcf83985b20762809f6eea6f40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Max=20=F0=9F=91=A8=F0=9F=8F=BD=E2=80=8D=F0=9F=92=BB=20Copl?=
=?UTF-8?q?an?=
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 17:22:55 -0700
Subject: [
vegerot wrote:
@AaronBallman please review
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97926
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Max Coplan (vegerot)
Changes
This patch adds -Wimplicit-fallthrough to -Wextra. GCC already includes it in
-Wextra.
This patch also adds a test to check that -Wimplicit-fallthrough is included in
-Wextra.
Note: This patch may regress pe
https://github.com/vegerot ready_for_review
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97926
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
github-actions[bot] wrote:
Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project!
This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be
notified.
If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this
page.
If this is not working for you, it
https://github.com/vegerot created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97926
This patch adds -Wimplicit-fallthrough to -Wextra. GCC already includes it in
-Wextra.
This patch also adds a test to check that -Wimplicit-fallthrough is included in
-Wextra.
Note: This patch may regress perf
21 matches
Mail list logo
