llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `clang-s390x-linux-lnt`
running on `systemz-1` while building `clang-tools-extra,clang` at step 7
"ninja check 1".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/136/builds/972
Here is the relevant p
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder
`clang-aarch64-sve-vla-2stage` running on `linaro-g3-02` while building
`clang-tools-extra,clang` at step 11 "build stage 2".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/41/builds/2164
Here is the
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `clang-ppc64le-rhel`
running on `ppc64le-clang-rhel-test` while building `clang-tools-extra,clang`
at step 5 "build-unified-tree".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/145/builds/1921
Here
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder
`clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage` running on `ppc64le-clang-multistage-test`
while building `clang-tools-extra,clang` at step 4 "build stage 1".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/76/builds/
https://github.com/AaronBallman closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109154
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/hokein approved this pull request.
This looks good.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109154
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/hokein edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109154
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -181,16 +181,16 @@ llvm::Expected>
getFoldingRanges(ParsedAST &AST) {
// Related issue: https://github.com/clangd/clangd/issues/310
llvm::Expected>
getFoldingRanges(const std::string &Code, bool LineFoldingOnly) {
hokein wrote:
I think we should keep it in
kadircet wrote:
thanks a lot for taking care of this @AaronBallman, I think the only concern
here is not regressing clangd functionality. We can figure out how we should
trim down the bits that're moving into clangd later if need be. I think this
LG, but cc @hokein as well.
https://github.co
zyn0217 wrote:
For visibility, see the last attempt at removal:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80081
AFAIK, some Clangd features e.g. code folding, are still relying on it, so
ditching it completely is probably not an option at the moment.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/
@@ -181,16 +181,16 @@ llvm::Expected>
getFoldingRanges(ParsedAST &AST) {
// Related issue: https://github.com/clangd/clangd/issues/310
llvm::Expected>
getFoldingRanges(const std::string &Code, bool LineFoldingOnly) {
AaronBallman wrote:
I don't have strong op
cor3ntin wrote:
Thanks for doing that Aaron.
LGTM on the clang side of things (and it does what the rfc proposed) - but I'll
let a clangd maintainer approve.
I was really excited by the pseudo parser as I think it would have been a very
useful tool with many use cases.
However, since the RFC w
@@ -181,16 +181,16 @@ llvm::Expected>
getFoldingRanges(ParsedAST &AST) {
// Related issue: https://github.com/clangd/clangd/issues/310
llvm::Expected>
getFoldingRanges(const std::string &Code, bool LineFoldingOnly) {
nico wrote:
Should we revert 70914aa631561
github-actions[bot] wrote:
:warning: C/C++ code formatter, clang-format found issues in your code.
:warning:
You can test this locally with the following command:
``bash
git-clang-format --diff 40c45b6b43180221acb49f387e7d3158adf49e3e
294b2ea315f1cbe1e794c2fb609455e9466e3b35 --e
https://github.com/erichkeane edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109154
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -43,6 +43,8 @@ infrastructure are described first, followed by tool-specific
sections.
Major New Features
--
+- The ``clang-pseudo`` tool has been removed.
erichkeane wrote:
A link to the RFC might be nice here, lets folks see the WHY.
ht
https://github.com/erichkeane approved this pull request.
I think the release note should be mroe detailed and give some help as to the
WHY here, and not just 'we removed it'.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/109154
___
cfe-commits mailing li
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Aaron Ballman (AaronBallman)
Changes
The functionality is incomplete and the authors have since shifted gears to
other work, so this is effectively unmaintained.
The original design document for clang-pseudo can be found at:
https://docs.
18 matches
Mail list logo
