Author: Nathan Ridge
Date: 2021-05-03T02:03:16-04:00
New Revision: 1f8963c80195aa86d02e81acedcf1ff3da127842
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/1f8963c80195aa86d02e81acedcf1ff3da127842
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/1f8963c80195aa86d02e81acedcf1ff3da127842.diff
Author: Nathan Ridge
Date: 2021-03-22T02:38:58-04:00
New Revision: 2e58226d8d7ee8b5e4a0f13188ef7d97911abae4
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/2e58226d8d7ee8b5e4a0f13188ef7d97911abae4
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/2e58226d8d7ee8b5e4a0f13188ef7d97911abae4.diff
Author: Nathan Ridge
Date: 2021-04-14T02:31:20-04:00
New Revision: cbc9c4ea90e17980b7b65966f4bbdba26a395e45
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/cbc9c4ea90e17980b7b65966f4bbdba26a395e45
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/cbc9c4ea90e17980b7b65966f4bbdba26a395e45.diff
Author: Nathan Ridge
Date: 2021-01-12T13:57:54-05:00
New Revision: 4718ec01669b01373180f4cd1256c6e2dd6f3999
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4718ec01669b01373180f4cd1256c6e2dd6f3999
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4718ec01669b01373180f4cd1256c6e2dd6f3999.diff
Author: Nathan Ridge
Date: 2021-10-25T17:39:32-04:00
New Revision: e6a971b1baecbeab612600337c1d2f06e3dea702
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/e6a971b1baecbeab612600337c1d2f06e3dea702
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/e6a971b1baecbeab612600337c1d2f06e3dea702.diff
Author: Nathan Ridge
Date: 2021-09-07T02:33:58-04:00
New Revision: c2810f2c1655593a48791327e9563417caf2e261
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/c2810f2c1655593a48791327e9563417caf2e261
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/c2810f2c1655593a48791327e9563417caf2e261.diff
Author: Nathan Ridge
Date: 2021-09-07T02:38:27-04:00
New Revision: 3e03d92e2f4ad150469646c1b140ae6abb256c82
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3e03d92e2f4ad150469646c1b140ae6abb256c82
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3e03d92e2f4ad150469646c1b140ae6abb256c82.diff
Author: Tom Praschan
Date: 2021-09-13T00:51:09-04:00
New Revision: 5a85f9b1d48c4367bf697adc0f62ed5c9378f0f3
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/5a85f9b1d48c4367bf697adc0f62ed5c9378f0f3
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/5a85f9b1d48c4367bf697adc0f62ed5c9378f0f3.diff
https://github.com/HighCommander4 approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/104845
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
HighCommander4 wrote:
> Looks like I definitely don't understand what's going on. Instead let me try
> a more conservative fix. This should preserve what the current code is doing
> and just fix the assertion failure.
Could you say more about what problem you ran into with the first fix approa
https://github.com/HighCommander4 requested changes to this pull request.
Having debugged the failing scenario a bit (see [this
comment](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/99617#issuecomment-2309220224)),
my sense is that we do not want to accept `MacroRefs` entries which are not in
t
@@ -1477,6 +1477,26 @@ TEST_F(SymbolCollectorTest, Documentation) {
forCodeCompletion(false;
}
+TEST_F(SymbolCollectorTest, DocumentationInMain) {
HighCommander4 wrote:
I'm thinking of it less as "specification", and more as a way
https://github.com/HighCommander4 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67802
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/HighCommander4 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67802
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -635,17 +635,20 @@ bool SymbolCollector::handleDeclOccurrence(
return true;
const Symbol *BasicSymbol = Symbols.find(ID);
- if (isPreferredDeclaration(*OriginalDecl, Roles))
+ bool SkipDocCheckInDef = false;
+ if (isPreferredDeclaration(*OriginalDecl, Roles)) {
https://github.com/HighCommander4 requested changes to this pull request.
Thanks, the test cases look good.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67802
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/l
https://github.com/HighCommander4 created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
The intent of the `CommentlessRedeclChains` cache is that if new redecls have
been parsed since the last time getRawCommentsForAnyRedecl() was called, only
the new redecls are checked for comments.
Howe
HighCommander4 wrote:
Meanwhile, I thought of a fix for
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/108145 and submitted it as
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475.
If that's accepted, you should be able to drop the `ASTContext.cpp` changes
from this patch.
https://github.com/llv
https://github.com/HighCommander4 requested changes to this pull request.
Thanks for putting together this patch!
Two high-level pieces of feedback:
1. The current patch implements the options as additional values of the
`--function-arg-placeholders` command-line flag. However, the proposal in
HighCommander4 wrote:
> Just to be clear, do you want to keep the new `--function-arg-placeholders`
> flags and also add it to the `.clangd` config!? Or do you only want the
> `.clangd` config and drop the changes to the `--function-arg-placeholders`
> flag!?
The latter. The only change relat
HighCommander4 wrote:
> Thanks for the input, a followup question is: Which one takes precedence?
> Does the `--function-arg-placeholders` argument take precedence over
> `.clangd` config!? Or the other way around!?
`.clangd` should take precedence because it's the a more specific setting
(co
HighCommander4 wrote:
> Is this okay!?
Yep. By the way, this was specified in the [original
proposal](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/63565#issuecomment-1975065771):
> Here's a concrete proposal for a config file syntax that would address this
> request, https://github.com/clangd/
HighCommander4 wrote:
Buildkite is showing the test `Clang ::
Index/comment-to-html-xml-conversion.cpp` failing. Will investigate.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.l
https://github.com/HighCommander4 converted_to_draft
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
HighCommander4 wrote:
> Buildkite is showing the test `Clang ::
> Index/comment-to-html-xml-conversion.cpp` failing. Will investigate.
I've been investigating this failure. It's caused by a slight change of
behaviour of `ASTContext::getFullComment()` on explicit function template
specializati
https://github.com/HighCommander4 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
>From 408259c2e28e4664f0d0c47a6a897c6eb5660f93 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Ridge
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 22:34:55 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] [AST] Iterate redecls starting from the canonical one in
https://github.com/HighCommander4 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/HighCommander4 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
HighCommander4 wrote:
@zyn0217 Thank you for the analysis and suggestion! I updated the patch as
suggested, let's see what buildkite says.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https:/
HighCommander4 wrote:
Hmm, quite a few things are failing:
```
Failed Tests (14):
Clang :: CXX/drs/cwg28xx.cpp
Clang :: CXX/drs/cwg7xx.cpp
Clang :: CXX/temp/temp.spec/temp.expl.spec/p2-20.cpp
Clang :: CXX/temp/temp.spec/temp.expl.spec/p8.cpp
Clang :: Index/index-file.cpp
Clang :: PCH
@@ -2292,9 +2289,26 @@ incomingCalls(const CallHierarchyItem &Item, const
SymbolIndex *Index) {
Index->lookup(ContainerLookup, [&](const Symbol &Caller) {
auto It = CallsIn.find(Caller.ID);
assert(It != CallsIn.end());
-if (auto CHI = symbolToCallHierarchyItem(Ca
@@ -2292,9 +2289,26 @@ incomingCalls(const CallHierarchyItem &Item, const
SymbolIndex *Index) {
Index->lookup(ContainerLookup, [&](const Symbol &Caller) {
auto It = CallsIn.find(Caller.ID);
assert(It != CallsIn.end());
-if (auto CHI = symbolToCallHierarchyItem(Ca
https://github.com/HighCommander4 commented:
Thanks for the update!
The patch is looking pretty good, just some minor comments remaining and then
it should be good to go.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95712
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cf
@@ -709,7 +738,8 @@ class InlayHintVisitor : public
RecursiveASTVisitor {
private:
using NameVec = SmallVector;
- void processCall(Callee Callee, llvm::ArrayRef Args) {
+ void processCall(Callee Callee, SourceRange RParenOrBraceRange,
HighCommander4 wrote
@@ -372,6 +381,25 @@ maybeDropCxxExplicitObjectParameters(ArrayRef Params) {
return Params;
}
+template
+std::string joinAndTruncate(R &&Range, size_t MaxLength,
HighCommander4 wrote:
Now that the function has only one call site, can we drop the
`GetAsStr
https://github.com/HighCommander4 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95712
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -1465,6 +1469,34 @@ TEST(TypeHints, DefaultTemplateArgs) {
ExpectedHint{": A", "binding"});
}
+TEST(DefaultArguments, Smoke) {
+ Config Cfg;
+ Cfg.InlayHints.Parameters =
+ true; // To test interplay of parameters and default parameters
+ Cfg.Inlay
@@ -1681,6 +1681,15 @@ enum class InlayHintKind {
/// This is a clangd extension.
BlockEnd = 4,
+ /// An inlay hint that is for a default argument.
+ ///
+ /// An example of a parameter hint for a default argument:
+ ///void foo(bool A = true);
+ ///foo(^);
+
https://github.com/HighCommander4 created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111616
I don't have a concrete motivating scenario here, just something I noticed
during code reading:
`CallHierarchyIncomingCall::fromRanges` are interpreted as ranges in the same
file as the `CallHierarchyIt
https://github.com/HighCommander4 created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111282
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/109367
>From d7ec29dc8852c4ae8b239daff11acc42caf4d544 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Ridge
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 01:45:35 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] [
HighCommander4 wrote:
> It crashes most likely because a local variable is captured in the static
> lambda.
>
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/bf895c714e1f8a51c1e565a75acf60bf7197be51/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/boost/UseRangesCheck.cpp#L208
Nice find! That does seem to be the prob
HighCommander4 wrote:
FYI, the new `boost-use-ranges` check is pretty crashy in clangd
(https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/109037,
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/109367,
https://github.com/clangd/clangd/issues/2173,
https://github.com/clangd/clangd/issues/2151).
https:/
https://github.com/HighCommander4 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111282
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/HighCommander4 created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111322
The new config option is a more flexible version of
--function-arg-placeholders, allowing users more detailed control of what is
inserted in argument list position when clangd completes the name of a fun
HighCommander4 wrote:
I've resubmitted this as https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111322.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108005
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cf
HighCommander4 wrote:
This was originally submitted by @MK-Alias and reviewed by me at
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108005.
The only changes I've made relative to #108005 is to remove unrelated
formatting changes (per my last outstanding review comment there) and reword
the commi
https://github.com/HighCommander4 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111322
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
HighCommander4 wrote:
Also requested backport to 19.x in
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/111317.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111282
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailma
HighCommander4 wrote:
> For this specific case, where a static lambda captures a local variable, I
> think we could enhance Clang to detect this kind of use-after-free bug.
Yep, good idea. I filed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/111316
about this.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-proj
HighCommander4 wrote:
Thanks. The buildkite failure looks unrelated (it's a `clang-move` test, and
this patch only touches `clangd` code), so I will go ahead and merge this.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95712
___
cfe-commits mailing list
https://github.com/HighCommander4 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95712
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
HighCommander4 wrote:
It looks like it was a deliberate design choice to disable this tweak for
templates: https://reviews.llvm.org/D85310.
cc @kadircet, @hokein for any thoughts
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112345
___
cfe-commits mailin
HighCommander4 wrote:
>3. I was getting `Property DefaultArguments` is not allowed in
> `config.yaml`. Is this a schema issue? I wasn't able to find where to update
> this
That sort of diagnostic is likely produced by a YAML plugin, which uses a
schema from https://github.com/SchemaStore/
@@ -1497,6 +1497,47 @@ TEST(DefaultArguments, Smoke) {
ExpectedHint{"A: ", "explicit", Left});
}
+TEST(DefaultArguments, WithoutParameterNames) {
+ Config Cfg;
+ Cfg.InlayHints.Parameters = false; // To test just default args this time
+ Cfg.InlayHints.Deduced
https://github.com/HighCommander4 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95712
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/HighCommander4 approved this pull request.
Thanks for the update and for spotting and fixing the added issues. I agree
that keeping `DefaultArguments` orthogonal to `Parameters` is a good choice.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95712
https://github.com/HighCommander4 approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111309
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
HighCommander4 wrote:
@5chmidti since you've already looked at this, I'd be happy for you to approve
this if you're comfortable doing so.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95235
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://l
@@ -2272,18 +2273,14 @@ incomingCalls(const CallHierarchyItem &Item, const
SymbolIndex *Index) {
// Initially store the ranges in a map keyed by SymbolID of the caller.
// This allows us to group different calls with the same caller
// into the same CallHierarchyIncoming
@@ -2292,9 +2289,26 @@ incomingCalls(const CallHierarchyItem &Item, const
SymbolIndex *Index) {
Index->lookup(ContainerLookup, [&](const Symbol &Caller) {
auto It = CallsIn.find(Caller.ID);
assert(It != CallsIn.end());
-if (auto CHI = symbolToCallHierarchyItem(Ca
@@ -104,9 +104,12 @@ bool isRootStmt(const Node *N) {
// Root statement cannot be partially selected.
if (N->Selected == SelectionTree::Partial)
return false;
- // Only DeclStmt can be an unselected RootStmt since VarDecls claim the
entire
- // selection range in sel
@@ -190,6 +190,14 @@ F (extracted();)
}]]
)cpp";
EXPECT_EQ(apply(CompoundFailInput), "unavailable");
+
+ ExtraArgs.push_back("-std=c++14");
+ // FIXME: Expressions are currently not extracted
+ EXPECT_EQ(apply(R"cpp(
+void sink(int);
+
https://github.com/HighCommander4 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81640
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
HighCommander4 wrote:
> (No action required) – we have other extensions in clangd e.g.
> `references.container` `offsetEncoding`. Do we plan to do the same thing for
> them?
Good question; I was initially thinking of doing it as needed / when someone
asks for it. But maybe it would be better
https://github.com/HighCommander4 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114699
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/HighCommander4 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113900
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/HighCommander4 approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113900
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/HighCommander4 created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/114699
This is done to support clients which only support adding custom
(language-specific or server-specific) capabilities under 'experimental'.
Fixes https://github.com/clangd/clangd/issues/2201
>From 52a562
HighCommander4 wrote:
Do I understand correctly that this is a partial fix for
https://github.com/clangd/clangd/issues/1254 in that it addresses the issue
with overloaded operators in particular, but it still leaves in place the
limitation that a **single** expression statement (of any kind) c
@@ -2238,7 +2238,10 @@ prepareCallHierarchy(ParsedAST &AST, Position Pos,
PathRef TUPath) {
for (const NamedDecl *Decl : getDeclAtPosition(AST, *Loc, {})) {
if (!(isa(Decl) &&
cast(Decl)->isFunctionOrMethod()) &&
-Decl->getKind() != Decl::Kind::Function
https://github.com/HighCommander4 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113900
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/HighCommander4 requested changes to this pull request.
Thanks for the patch!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113900
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe
https://github.com/HighCommander4 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
>From 1df905728da591bae0acf231e2d7c1f7492d43f3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Ridge
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 22:34:55 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] [AST] Ensure getRawCommentsForAnyRedecl() does not miss an
@@ -444,7 +444,7 @@ const RawComment *ASTContext::getRawCommentForAnyRedecl(
return CommentlessRedeclChains.lookup(CanonicalD);
}();
- for (const auto Redecl : D->redecls()) {
+ for (const auto Redecl : CanonicalD->redecls()) {
HighCommander4 wrote:
T
https://github.com/HighCommander4 approved this pull request.
Thanks! The patch looks good to me. And the index size measurements reported in
[this
comment](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67802#issuecomment-1923778262)
look good as well, thank you for taking them.
https://github.co
https://github.com/HighCommander4 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67802
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
HighCommander4 wrote:
> `FlagConfigProvider` is pushed in the vector after `.clangd` config in
> [CLangdMain.cpp](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/a4586bd2d4fa7d6c0100893496a9383fd581e2e9/clang-tools-extra/clangd/tool/ClangdMain.cpp#L926)
> Then
> [ConfigProvider.cpp](https://github.c
@@ -230,6 +230,10 @@ class Parser {
if (auto AllScopes = boolValue(N, "AllScopes"))
F.AllScopes = *AllScopes;
});
+Dict.handle("ArgumentLists", [&](Node &N) {
+ if (auto ArgumentLists = scalarValue(N, "ArgumentLists"))
HighCommander4
https://github.com/HighCommander4 requested changes to this pull request.
Thanks, this is looking pretty good. My only remaining request is to please
split the formatting changes out. I know it's the fault of the code not being
clang-format clean, and I'm happy to merge them in a separate PR, b
https://github.com/HighCommander4 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108005
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/HighCommander4 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108005
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
HighCommander4 wrote:
> > but it confuses things when "git blame" says that the last commit that
> > touched some unrelated
>
> And it's not confusing if "git blame" says that this same part of code is
> there in a "clang-format commit". Instead of it's original?
I would say that's less c
https://github.com/HighCommander4 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -451,8 +451,17 @@ const RawComment *ASTContext::getRawCommentForAnyRedecl(
if (LastCheckedRedecl) {
if (LastCheckedRedecl == Redecl) {
LastCheckedRedecl = nullptr;
+continue;
HighCommander4 wrote:
The fix for #108145 has merged now
https://github.com/HighCommander4 requested changes to this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67802
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/HighCommander4 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/HighCommander4 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
>From 1df68534d086e20572f2371239826d6b3514e58b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Ridge
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 22:34:55 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] [AST] Ensure getRawCommentsForAnyRedecl() does not miss an
HighCommander4 wrote:
Added release note. I put it under "Bug Fixes to AST Handling" which seemed
like a good fit.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/
https://github.com/HighCommander4 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
>From 2b14e8063c21e32d771c3f82ec9fc2319a24d5a6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Ridge
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 22:34:55 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] [AST] Ensure getRawCommentsForAnyRedecl() does not miss an
https://github.com/HighCommander4 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
>From d224e1b658f56bf741cebf8dc5b2914716d9f47b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Ridge
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 22:34:55 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] [AST] Ensure getRawCommentsForAnyRedecl() does not miss an
HighCommander4 wrote:
(Rebased)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/HighCommander4 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
>From 2b14e8063c21e32d771c3f82ec9fc2319a24d5a6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nathan Ridge
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 22:34:55 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] [AST] Ensure getRawCommentsForAnyRedecl() does not miss an
@@ -440,14 +440,23 @@ const RawComment *ASTContext::getRawCommentForAnyRedecl(
// Any redeclarations of D that we haven't checked for comments yet?
// We can't use DenseMap::iterator directly since it'd get invalid.
- auto LastCheckedRedecl = [this, CanonicalD]() -> const
HighCommander4 wrote:
Thanks for the reviews! I'll add the release note shortly (need to update to a
newer baseline first).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org
@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+//===- unittests/AST/RawCommentForDeclTestTest.cpp
+//-===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier:
https://github.com/HighCommander4 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
HighCommander4 wrote:
Note, I also updated the commit message to reflect the new fix approach.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-
https://github.com/HighCommander4 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/HighCommander4 ready_for_review
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
HighCommander4 wrote:
Buildkite is green with this approach! Graduated patch from "Draft" state.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108475
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cf
501 - 600 of 1069 matches
Mail list logo
