Thanks for fixing this!
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Nico Weber via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author: nico
> Date: Sun Feb 7 15:32:17 2016
> New Revision: 260058
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=260058&view=rev
> Log:
> Make nozlibcompress.c pass and r
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Xinliang David Li
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:39 AM, David Blaikie wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:25 AM, David Li via llvm-commits
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> davidxl updated this revision to Diff 47217.
> >> davidxl added a comment.
> >>
> >> Simpl
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Xinliang David Li
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:17 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Xinliang David Li
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:39 AM, David Blaikie
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 a
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Xinliang David Li
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:35 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Xinliang David Li
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:17 PM, David Blaikie
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Xinliang David Li
wrote:
> To be clear, you are suggesting breaking the test into two (one for
> copy, and one for move) ? I am totally fine with that.
Nah, no need to split the test case - we try to keep the number of test
files down (& group related tests into
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Xinliang David Li
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:05 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Xinliang David Li
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> To be clear, you are suggesting breaking the test into two (one for
> >> copy, and one for move) ? I
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Xinliang David Li
wrote:
> ha! somehow I kept thinking you are referring to implicit declared ctors.
>
Ah, glad we figured out the disconnect - thanks for bearing with me!
>
> From your test case, it is seems that the implicit copy/move op is
> also broken and i
FWIW, I tried to do something like this, perhaps with some other
improvements, a few years ago. Not sure if things have changed for the
better since then, but maybe those old patches may provide some
insight/other improvements/options:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-201409
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Xinliang David Li
wrote:
> I took a look at the problem. The implicitly defaulted operators
> should not be instrumented as specified -- I actually I just added the
> new test case for that (checking profile counter not generated) right
> after my previous reply an
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Xinliang David Li
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 8:46 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Xinliang David Li
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I took a look at the problem. The implicitly defaulted operators
> >> should not be instrumented as spec
Author: dblaikie
Date: Tue Feb 9 12:52:09 2016
New Revision: 260246
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=260246&view=rev
Log:
Simplify EnterTokenStream API to make it more robust for memory management
While this won't help fix things like the bug that r260219 addressed, it
seems like goo
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Xinliang David Li
wrote:
> Wrong in the sense the the coverage result for the default operators
> (the line where they are declared) is marked as if they are not called
> which can be confusing to the user.
>
Presumably a user would have the same problem with impl
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Xinliang David Li
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:14 AM, David Blaikie wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Xinliang David Li
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Wrong in the sense the the coverage result for the default operators
> >> (the line where they are
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Xinliang David Li
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:30 AM, David Blaikie wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Xinliang David Li
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:14 AM, David Blaikie
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016
dblaikie added inline comments.
Comment at: cfe/trunk/test/Profile/def-assignop.cpp:27
@@ +26,3 @@
+
+int main() {
+ A a1, a2;
This doesn't need to be main or have an int return. Just make it a void
function (with some generic name) & drop the "return 0" to keep
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:07 PM, David Li via llvm-commits <
llvm-comm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
> Closed by commit rL260270: [PGO] Fix issue: explicitly defaulted assignop
> is not profiled (authored by davidxl).
>
In ge
It's best not to commit things without approval once they've been sent for
review (the assumption being that if you asked for review it's because the
change needed review - time doesn't change that fact) - if approval was
given off-list (eg: on IRC) it's best to mention who gave it & where (&
ideal
dblaikie added a subscriber: dblaikie.
dblaikie added a comment.
Needs test coverage
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16949
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Cong Liu via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author: congliu
> Date: Thu Feb 11 10:03:27 2016
> New Revision: 260532
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=260532&view=rev
> Log:
> Merge branch 'arcpatch-D16922'
>
Please be sure to che
Since this is just a wording change, presumably the diagnostic is already
tested in an existing file - perhaps you could exetendi that test to cover
this functionality (we try not to add new test files too much - better to
test functionality once/in one place as much as possible (both for ease of
r
dblaikie added a comment.
Thanks - please commit when ready
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15977
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Is this anything more than the -Wdeprecated warning? (could we split out
the -Wdeprecated warning that deals with the deprecated implicit special
member generation, then just use that warning for this clang-tidy check?)
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Jonathan B Coe via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Ryan Yee via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> ryee88 updated this revision to Diff 48149.
> ryee88 added a comment.
>
> Keeping the number of test files to a minimum makes sense.
>
> Couldn't find an existing test for this diagnostic.
That woul
Thanks all! Which compiler flagged this? Wonder if/why Clang didn't flag it
for me?
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Phabricator via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
> Closed by commit rL261207: Add parent
should probably have test coverage
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Eugene Zelenko via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Eugene.Zelenko created this revision.
> Eugene.Zelenko added reviewers: alexfh, xazax.hun, aaron.ballman.
> Eugene.Zelenko added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
> E
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Eugene Zelenko via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Eugene.Zelenko added a comment.
>
> Also I agree that testing is good idea, it doesn't make sense in current
> incarnation which test only vector and set and only with containers' code
> snippet
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Eugene Zelenko
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:32 AM, David Blaikie
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Eugene Zelenko via cfe-commits
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Eugene.Zelenko added a comment.
> >>
> >> Also I agree that testing is good idea,
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Eugene Zelenko
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:06 AM, David Blaikie
> wrote:
> >
> > Could we take this conversation back to the list? (better to discuss
> things
> > with everyone)
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Eugene Zelenko <
> eugene.zele...@
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:29 AM, Alexander Kornienko via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author: alexfh
> Date: Tue Feb 23 04:29:04 2016
> New Revision: 261626
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=261626&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix a -Wunused-variable diagnostic.
>
> Modif
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Nico Weber via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author: nico
> Date: Tue Feb 23 13:30:43 2016
> New Revision: 261674
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=261674&view=rev
> Log:
> Rename Action::begin() to Action::input_begin().
>
> Al
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Nico Weber wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:44 PM, David Blaikie via cfe-commits <
> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Nico Weber via cfe-commits <
>> cfe-commits@lists.llv
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Nico Weber wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:55 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Nico Weber wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:44 PM, David Blaikie via cfe-commits
Seems like this test got flagged as 'slow' by Google's internal
infrastructure - and that makes me wonder about whether it's appropriate to
have in the lit test suite - we really want to keep these tests as fast as
possible.
I think we're generally OK committing iterator invalidation fixes without
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:45 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Ryan Yee via cfe-commits <
> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> ryee88 updated this revision to Diff 48149.
>> ryee88 added a comment.
>>
>> Keeping the number of test files to a minimum makes sens
dblaikie added a comment.
For 3 code paths (that seem fairly independent from one another) I'd only
really expect to see 3 variables in the test - one to exercise each codepath.
What's the reason for the larger set of test cases?
Then it might be simpler just to include 6 variables, one of each
Author: dblaikie
Date: Wed Apr 27 13:47:45 2016
New Revision: 267754
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=267754&view=rev
Log:
Fix a bunch of sign-compare warnings
Modified:
clang-tools-extra/trunk/unittests/include-fixer/find-all-symbols/FindAllSymbolsTests.cpp
Modified:
clang-too
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Paul Robinson via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> probinson added a comment.
>
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19567#413997, @dblaikie wrote:
>
> > For 3 code paths (that seem fairly independent from one another) I'd
> only really expect to see 3 v
Should these have no/artificial location? It seems like perhaps they should
have the same location as the scope they're for? (well, the beginning or
end of that scope, respectively, etc)
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Adrian Prantl via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Adrian Prantl wrote:
>
> On Apr 28, 2016, at 12:34 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>
> Should these have no/artificial location? It seems like perhaps they
> should have the same location as the scope they're for? (well, the
> beginning or end of that scope, respective
LGTM
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Paul Robinson via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> probinson created this revision.
> probinson added a reviewer: aaron.ballman.
> probinson added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
>
> The 'nodebug' attribute had hand-coded constraints; replace tho
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Adrian Prantl wrote:
>
> On Apr 28, 2016, at 12:53 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Adrian Prantl wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 12:34 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>>
>> Should these have no/artificial location? It seems like p
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Robinson, Paul
wrote:
> Generally tests test something other than "this program doesn't crash" -
> should it test that we apply the attribute correctly? (either via ast dump,
> or checking the resulting DWARF doesn't have debug info on the relevant
> entity)
>
> O
As mentioned in the bug, I /think/ the right thing to do here is to change
the preferred location of the CXXMemberCallExpr so that we improve
diagnostics as well. Any place where the preferred location of an
expression and the debug location of an expression are differing I'd really
like a pretty d
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Adrian Prantl wrote:
>
> On Apr 28, 2016, at 4:31 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Adrian Prantl wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 28, 2016, at 12:53 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Adrian Prantl
>> w
You could simplify the test case further, down to just:
struct foo { void bar(); };
void f(foo *f) {
f->bar();
}
and check that the call instruction has the desired column (or if you want
a test that doesn't depend on column info (you can force it on with a flag,
but we might vary whether it's
I'm not sure why we'd want to compile the test suite with -Wunused-variable
(& even if we did, I imagine Clang's doesn't fire here because the
variables are used, just in non-evaluated contexts?)? Is there a benefit to
it being clean of unused-variable warnings? (in Clang's test case we just
aggres
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Stephan T. Lavavej via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> STL_MSFT marked 2 inline comments as done.
> STL_MSFT added a comment.
>
> What I'm doing is running libcxx's tests against MSVC's compiler and
> libraries. I could aggressively suppress warn
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Stephan T. Lavavej <
s...@exchange.microsoft.com> wrote:
> [David Blaikie]
> > Unused-variable seems pretty low value.
>
> Yeah, but it still has the potential to detect mistakes (e.g. typos, or
> code you intended to write but forgot about).
>
> I figured I'd subm
dblaikie added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19567#414906, @probinson wrote:
> Huh. There are strange interactions here, which makes me even more nervous
> about testing fewer cases.
Generally this sort of thing makes me more interested in testing fewer cases so
we can see/make sure
dblaikie added inline comments.
Comment at: test/CodeGenCXX/debug-info-nodebug.cpp:50
@@ -49,1 +49,3 @@
NODEBUG static int static_local = 6;
+ NODEBUG const int const_local = 7;
+ NODEBUGint normal_local = 8;
Doesn't look like the const case is any d
Any reason not to remove the story instead?
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Apelete Seketeli via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> apelete created this revision.
> apelete added a reviewer: akyrtzi.
> apelete added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
>
> This fixes dead store warnings of
Sorry, I meant remove the /store/, if it's dead. The do/while loop
overwrites the store immediately, so just remove the assignment to Record?
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Apelete Seketeli via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> apelete added a comment.
>
> In http://reviews.llvm
Looks good to me - go ahead & commit whenever you're ready.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Apelete Seketeli via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> apelete updated this revision to Diff 55952.
> apelete added a comment.
>
> [scan-build] fix dead store warnings emitted on clang co
dblaikie accepted this revision.
dblaikie added a reviewer: dblaikie.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Comment at: tools/c-index-test/c-index-test.c:1435-1436
@@ -1434,3 +1434,4 @@
/* recurse to get the first parent record that is not anonymous. */
-CXCurs
Thanks - do you need someone (me) to commit this, or do you have commit
access?
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Apelete Seketeli via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> apelete updated this revision to Diff 56059.
> apelete added a comment.
>
> [scan-build] fix dead store warnings
Author: dblaikie
Date: Tue May 3 17:14:14 2016
New Revision: 268453
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=268453&view=rev
Log:
[scan-build] fix dead store warnings emitted on clang code base
This fixes dead store warnings of the type "dead assignment" reported
by CLang Static Analyzer on
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL268453: [scan-build] fix dead store warnings emitted on
clang code base (authored by dblaikie).
Changed prior to commit:
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19831?vs=56059&id=56071#toc
Repository:
rL LLVM
http
Author: dblaikie
Date: Tue May 3 18:06:40 2016
New Revision: 268460
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=268460&view=rev
Log:
[modules][debuginfo] Only include imported modules when targeting LLDB
These constructs are only applicable to a debugger capable of loading a
Clang AST, so omit
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Paul Robinson via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> probinson marked 2 inline comments as done.
>
>
> Comment at: include/clang/Basic/Attr.td:86-88
> @@ -85,1 +85,5 @@
> +def NonParmVar : SubsetSubject +
dblaikie added a subscriber: dblaikie.
Comment at: lib/AST/ASTDiagnostic.cpp:1686
@@ -1685,3 +1685,3 @@
-if (Same) {
+if (Same && FromTD) {
OS << "template " << FromTD->getNameAsString();
Should this be a condition, or just an assertion?
dblaikie added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp:1317
@@ -1316,2 +1316,3 @@
}
+ assert(V && "constant must be not NULL at this point");
TemplateParams.push_back(DBuilder.createTemplateValueParameter(
It looks like this ass
Should this be a test, or just an assertion?
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Apelete Seketeli via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> apelete created this revision.
> apelete added reviewers: kevin.qin, rsmith.
> apelete added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
>
> Signed-off-by: Apelete S
dblaikie added a subscriber: dblaikie.
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PlistDiagnostics.cpp:300
@@ -299,2 +299,3 @@
+ assert(SM && "SourceManager is NULL, cannot iterate through the
diagnostics");
This assertion seems to be equivalent to replacing the pr
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Robinson, Paul
wrote:
> This would be a great conversation to have at the social, sadly I will
> have to miss it this month.
>
Yeah, I don't often make it along to them, unfortunately.
>
> >> dblaikie wrote:
> >>> Doesn't look like the const case is any differen
dblaikie added a subscriber: dblaikie.
Comment at: unittests/Tooling/QualTypeNamesTest.cpp:91
@@ -90,2 +90,3 @@
Visitor.ExpectedQualTypeNames["AliasTypeVal"] = "A::B::C::InnerAlias";
+ Visitor.ExpectedQualTypeNames["CheckM"] = "const A::B::Class0 *";
Visitor.runOver(
--
If you have a check that doesn't have a test/is never triggered - simple
thing to do is just make it an assert & run some testing of your own
(selfhost, etc) then if there's insufficient evidence that it's needed,
ship it and wait until it fails on a buildbot, etc. Then reduce the test
case and che
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Hal Finkel wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "David Blaikie"
> > To: reviews+d19708+public+e9ddc42503732...@reviews.llvm.org, "Hal
> Finkel"
> > Cc: "Richard Smith" , "Adrian Prantl" <
> apra...@apple.com>, "Duncan P. N. Exon Smith"
> > , "Eric Chri
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Richard Smith via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author: rsmith
> Date: Mon May 16 17:53:19 2016
> New Revision: 269717
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=269717&view=rev
> Log:
> Switch from SmallVector to TinyPtrVector for the li
Test coverage?
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Marshall Clow via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author: marshall
> Date: Tue May 17 12:44:40 2016
> New Revision: 269789
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=269789&view=rev
> Log:
> Implement LWG2576: istream_itera
about how not all parts of this change are testable (and hence not
> meaningful) but that's what the standard says to do.
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:51 PM, David Blaikie via cfe-commits <
> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Test coverage?
>>
>>
ping
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:51 AM, David Blaikie via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> dblaikie added a comment.
>
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19567#414906, @probinson wrote:
>
> > Huh. There are strange interactions here, which makes me even more
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Robinson, Paul
wrote:
> What you are describing is what testing literature refers to as criteria
> for equivalence classes. There is some level of judgment to that, yes.
>
>
>
> Yep yep, to be sure. I'm just generally trying to encourage the community
> behavior
The patch'll need a test case (in clang/tests) - I've not looked at the
change/have much opinion there, just suggesting adding a test at minimum so
when someone does come to review it it's more complete/closer to/ready to
commit.
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Taewook Oh via cfe-commits <
cfe-co
I'm not sure, but assume the Inputs directories could be sunk to a common
parent (test/Inputs rather than test/CodeGen/Inputs, etc)
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Reid Kleckner via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author: rnk
> Date: Thu May 19 19:38:25 2016
> New Revision: 27
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Adrian Prantl via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 29, 2016, at 12:00 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <
> jo...@britannica.bec.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 06:47:24PM +, Adrian Prantl via cfe-commits
> wrote:
> >> This code in
gcc doesn't want to do the implicit conversion from X to A, but if I make
> the conversion explicit it works.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Alexey Samsonov
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:55 AM, David Blaikie via cfe-commits <
>>
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Adrian Prantl wrote:
>
> On Mar 29, 2016, at 10:06 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Adrian Prantl via cfe-commits <
> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Mar 29, 2016, at 12:00 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <
>> jo...@brita
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Adrian Prantl wrote:
>
> On Mar 31, 2016, at 5:35 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Adrian Prantl wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 29, 2016, at 10:06 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Adrian Prantl via
dblaikie abandoned this revision.
dblaikie added a subscriber: rsmith.
dblaikie added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D3635#44720, @rsmith wrote:
> Implementation LGTM, if you decide that you want to go in this direction.
Just looking over some old patches/git branches I had lying around.
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Eric Christopher via llvm-commits <
llvm-comm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> echristo added inline comments.
>
>
> Comment at: lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfDebug.cpp:477-479
> @@ -476,2 +476,5 @@
> + unsigned DebugCUs = 0;
>for (MDNode *N : CU_Nod
Okey dokey - I know one of the things we did (& I don't know when it
happened compared to this change) is emit a hard list of variables onto any
subprogram for an optimized (non -O0) function. So we never lose variables
due to optimizations, or at least that's the intent.
As for D18477, I'm not su
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Adrian Prantl wrote:
>
> On Apr 6, 2016, at 8:16 AM, David Blaikie wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Eric Christopher via llvm-commits <
> llvm-comm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> echristo added inline comments.
>>
>>
>> Comment at:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Reid Kleckner via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> rnk updated this revision to Diff 52982.
> rnk marked 3 inline comments as done.
> rnk added a comment.
>
> - Add -Wshadow-all and -Wshadow-field-in-constructor, also address review
> comments
>
S
dblaikie accepted this revision.
dblaikie added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Looks good, thanks! Sorry for the delays/mthanks for the chat on IRC (summary:
no worse than what we have today, more explicit, maybe we can find an
alternative and/or more compact represe
I'd consider just making this a compiler warning, perhaps?
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:52 AM, Alex Pilkiewicz via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> pilki created this revision.
> pilki added a reviewer: alexfh.
> pilki added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
>
> Checks if constructors and
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Benjamin Kramer via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author: d0k
> Date: Mon Apr 11 07:19:19 2016
> New Revision: 265934
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=265934&view=rev
> Log:
> [clang-format] Walk backwards from end() instead of
I don't feel sufficiently strongly to insist - clang-tidy's mostly outside
my wheelhouse anyway.
As for how to go about it - my rough approach would be to write a small
test case that calls an implicitly-deleted-but-explicitly-defaulted move
op, run it, check the diagnostic text, find that in Diag
Any chance of using unique_ptr, or at least a scoped cleanup device, here?
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Hans Wennborg via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author: hans
> Date: Mon Apr 11 15:53:59 2016
> New Revision: 265994
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=26
Author: dblaikie
Date: Tue Apr 12 16:22:48 2016
New Revision: 266127
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=266127&view=rev
Log:
Add a fixme for an old patch I had lying around that I'm not going to finish
any time so n
Modified:
cfe/trunk/lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp
Modified: cfe/tru
Author: dblaikie
Date: Wed Apr 13 13:23:33 2016
New Revision: 266222
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=266222&view=rev
Log:
Simplify memory management of CXEvalResultKind/ExprEvalResult using unique_ptr
and a dtor
This doesn't seem to need to be a C type, C only handles a void*, so us
tructor. I'm not going to
> dig into that, I just wanted to address this bug that someone
> reported.
>
> - Hans
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:51 AM, David Blaikie via cfe-commits
> wrote:
> > Any chance of using unique_ptr, or at least a scoped cleanup devi
Author: dblaikie
Date: Wed Apr 13 13:36:19 2016
New Revision: 266224
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=266224&view=rev
Log:
libclang: Use early-return to reduce indentation.
& since I'll get blamed for all the lines anyway, remove some
else-after-return and otherwise tidy things up.
M
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Richard Trieu via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author: rtrieu
> Date: Thu Apr 21 16:04:55 2016
> New Revision: 267054
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=267054&view=rev
> Log:
> Split interesting warnings off from -Wfloat-convers
NO_REMOVE seems like a strange way of saying it - is there existing
precedent for that naming/description? (rather than something like
_LIBCPP_PROVIDE_AUTOPTR ?
As for tests - XFAILing seems a bit general when there's really not much
value in running any of the tests anyway. REQUIRES, perhaps? (th
ah, indeed :/
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Eric Fiselier wrote:
> > As for tests - XFAILing seems a bit general when there's really not
> much value in running any of the tests anyway. REQUIRES, perhaps?
>
> Unfortunately REQUIRES is a conjunction so the obvious "// REQUIRES:
> c++98, c++03
Author: dblaikie
Date: Sun May 29 14:50:23 2016
New Revision: 271188
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=271188&view=rev
Log:
Enable some accidentally dead tests and fix up the bitrot
Problem found by Nico, originally committed by me in r213213. The .test
prefix wasn't actually being run
Thanks for the catch!
Fixed in r271188
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Nico Weber wrote:
> Zombie review comment: ".test" isn't part of
> test/lit.cfg::config.suffixes, so the two .test files added in this change
> never run unless you explicitly run them (e.g. with `bin/llvm-lit
> ../llvm-rw
Burt Wesarg points out on cfe-dev that this commit message doesn't match
the patch (nor the description provided in the code review thread that lead
to this commit) - this one might be worth reverting and recommitting with a
more accurate commit message (I don't usually suggest this for most commit
dblaikie added a subscriber: dblaikie.
dblaikie added a comment.
Could you describe in more detail (ideally in the original patch review
summary/description) what this transformation does? Under what conditions does
it suggest emplace, etc.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20964
___
At least in theory it'd be nice to have test cases for the other call sites
this change adds CC to.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Reid Kleckner via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author: rnk
> Date: Wed Jun 8 15:41:54 2016
> New Revision: 272198
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/vie
1001 - 1100 of 1491 matches
Mail list logo
