jlebar added a comment.
Gosh I think the chances we get through this without a copy-paste error are way
too high. I'm not sure what to do about it, though. I don't have the focus to
check this as carefully as it needs.
Perhaps we need to test this in the test-suite (eventually)? We've seen t
jlebar added inline comments.
Comment at: clang/lib/Headers/__clang_cuda_device_functions.h:32
+
+#define __DEVICE__ static __device__ __forceinline__
+// There are number of functions that became compiler builtins in CUDA-9 and
are
tra wrote:
> jlebar wrote:
>
jlebar added inline comments.
Comment at: clang/lib/Headers/__clang_cuda_device_functions.h:32
+
+#define __DEVICE__ static __device__ __forceinline__
+// There are number of functions that became compiler builtins in CUDA-9 and
are
tra wrote:
> jlebar wrote:
>
jlebar added a comment.
Can we document this behavior in https://llvm.org/docs/CompileCudaWithLLVM.html
(in the LLVM repo)? Totally fine if you want to do this in a separate patch.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D42642
___
cfe-co
jlebar added a comment.
This doesn't look wrong to me, but I feel utterly unqualified to review this.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D30375
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jlebar created this revision.
jlebar added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
Herald added a subscriber: mgorny.
This checks for calls to double-precision math.h with single-precision
arguments. For example, it suggests replacing ::sin(0.f) with
::sinf(0.f).
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27284
Files:
cl
jlebar added inline comments.
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/performance-type-promotion-in-math-fn.rst:6
+
+Finds calls to math.h functions with implicit float to double promotions.
+
Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> Please enclose math.h, float and
jlebar updated this revision to Diff 79829.
jlebar marked 3 inline comments as done.
jlebar added a comment.
Formatting fixes in documentation.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27284
Files:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/performance/CMakeLists.txt
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/performance/Performance
jlebar updated this revision to Diff 79835.
jlebar marked an inline comment as done.
jlebar added a comment.
Note that the relevant functions may come from .
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27284
Files:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/performance/CMakeLists.txt
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/performan
jlebar updated this revision to Diff 79951.
jlebar marked 2 inline comments as done.
jlebar added a comment.
Update test, use "auto". Still need to figure out how to lex these function
calls properly.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27284
Files:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/performance/CMakeLists
jlebar added inline comments.
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/performance/TypePromotionInMathFnCheck.cpp:62-67
+ Finder->addMatcher(
+ callExpr(callee(functionDecl(TwoDoubleArgFns, parameterCountIs(2),
+ hasBuiltinTyParam(0, Doubl
jlebar added a comment.
> where would be the right place for me to put a test to check that it is
> working (i.e. ASAN still works for CUDA host code).
I just ran the test from https://reviews.llvm.org/rL281680, and it passes
because it doesn't notice clang raising the "unsupported option
'-fs
jlebar added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27316#611160, @kcc wrote:
> at the very least this requires a test... Let me thing about the logic a bit
> more...
I think we just need to fix the test from the previous CL, which is buggy and
didn't catch this regression.
https://reviews
jlebar added a comment.
This takes it back to how it used to be before I regressed it, which I think is
good enough for now. If we want to revisit how we make this work for
offloading toolchains in general, we can do that separately.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27316
jlebar updated this revision to Diff 80011.
jlebar added a comment.
Suggest std::foo instead of ::foof.
I spoke with rtrieu IRL and he suggested I do this to match what he did in
SemaChecking.cpp for calls to "abs". Seems reasonable to me. This also lets
me sidestep the question of lexing the q
jlebar added a comment.
Thank you very much for the reviews, @alexfh.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27284
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jlebar accepted this revision.
jlebar added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
I like it!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27351
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
jlebar added a comment.
If you would like me to have another look at this, is it possible to make an
interdiff of your changes between this and the last version I reviewed? phab's
interdiff is useless because it straddles a rebase.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D25809
__
jlebar added a comment.
(Alternatively I'm happy not to have another look if you don't think you need
it.)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D25809
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-co
jlebar added a comment.
> I've reverted to 75652
Did you forget to arc diff?
Anyway if it's just that if statement, lgtm.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D25809
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman
jlebar accepted this revision.
jlebar added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:8415
+// specialization inherits its target attributes from its template
+// in CheckFunctionTemplateSpecialization() call below
jlebar added a comment.
lgtm!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D25845
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jlebar accepted this revision.
jlebar added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Comment at: lib/Driver/Driver.cpp:1952
+
+
+ // Default to sm_20 which is the lowest common denominator for
Extra linebreak
Comme
jlebar added a comment.
@alexfh , friendly ping. I'm not in a huge rush on this or anything, but I
don't want one or both of us to lose all context here...
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27284
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
htt
jlebar marked an inline comment as done.
jlebar added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27284#621052, @malcolm.parsons wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27284#609937, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
>
> > Please mention this check in docs/ReleaseNotes.rst (in alphabetical order).
>
>
> This has
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL289627: [ClangTidy] Add new
performance-type-promotion-in-math-fn check. (authored by jlebar).
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27284?vs=80011&id=81339#toc
Repository:
rL LLVM
http
jlebar created this revision.
jlebar added a reviewer: alexfh.
jlebar added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
Herald added a subscriber: JDevlieghere.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27748
Files:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/performance/TypePromotionInMathFnCheck.cpp
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/performan
jlebar added a comment.
Sent https://reviews.llvm.org/D27748 for #include suggestion.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27284
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-c
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
jlebar marked an inline comment as done.
Closed by commit rL289637: [clang-tidy] Suggest including if necessary
in type-promotion-in-math… (authored by jlebar).
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27748?vs
jlebar marked 2 inline comments as done.
jlebar added a comment.
Thank you for the review, @alexfh. I will commit with these changes.
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/performance/TypePromotionInMathFnCheck.cpp:198
+Result.Context->getSourceManager().getFil
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rG6eb826567af0: [Driver] Add CUDA support for --offload param
(authored by dcastagna, committed by jlebar).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D11713
jlebar added a comment.
Pushed for Daniele:
To github.com:llvm/llvm-project.git
99d2582164c4..6eb826567af0 main -> main
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D117137/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D117137
___
jlebar added a comment.
- What's different in this patch vs the previous one?
- *Disabled a hip test on Windows that's breaking on head.* Can you clarify: Is
this test broken at HEAD, or does it break with your patch?
If it's broken at HEAD, then it should be disabled in a separate patch.
I
jlebar accepted this revision.
jlebar added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
I'll land this for you.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D120366/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D120366
This revision was landed with ongoing or failed builds.
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rGc2f501f39589: [CUDA][SPIRV] Assign global address space to
CUDA kernel arguments (authored by shangwuyao, committed by jlebar).
Repository:
rG LLV
jlebar added a comment.
I defer to Art.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D117137/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D117137
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.ll
jlebar accepted this revision.
jlebar added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
I can't argue with this.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D100310/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D100310
___
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rG7dd606889925: [clang-rename] Handle designated initializers.
(authored by dcastagna, committed by jlebar).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D1003
jlebar added a comment.
Other than the declval issue discussed above, this looks reasonable to me. I
don't notice anything wrong with the standard library reimplementations here.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D100794/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D100794
__
jlebar added a comment.
Hi, welcome! Thank you for the careful and well-motivated first commit. (I
also see https://github.com/ccache/ccache/issues/772, hooray for noticing
that...)
I am also not 100% sure how to write a test, but I think you may be able to
observe the effect of your driver
jlebar accepted this revision.
jlebar added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thanks, Art.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D108787/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D108787
___
201 - 241 of 241 matches
Mail list logo