rengolin accepted this revision.
rengolin added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
I agree with Keith. This is a starting point, not a final destination.
As we evolve this, we can start looking at better ways to improve the debug
illusion, but right now, `O1` is probably
Author: rengolin
Date: Mon Nov 14 06:19:18 2016
New Revision: 286818
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=286818&view=rev
Log:
Revert "Improve handling of floating point literals in OpenCL to only use
double precision if the target supports fp64."
This reverts commit r286815, as it broke
On 14 November 2016 at 11:15, Neil Hickey via cfe-commits
wrote:
> Author: neil.hickey
> Date: Mon Nov 14 05:15:51 2016
> New Revision: 286815
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=286815&view=rev
> Log:
> Improve handling of floating point literals in OpenCL to only use double
> preci
rengolin added a comment.
Looks like an oversight. Aren't there any tests for this? Maybe there should be
one.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26464
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-
rengolin accepted this revision.
rengolin added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
As required by http://reviews.llvm.org/D12692. LGTM, thanks!
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12722
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.ll
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Basic/Targets.cpp:4785
@@ +4784,3 @@
+if (Opts.C99 && !Opts.Freestanding) {
+ Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_FP_FENV_ROUNDING", "1");
+ Builder.defineMacro("__STDC_IEC_559__", "1");
I'm not convinced by the
rengolin added reviewers: rsmith, t.p.northover.
rengolin added a comment.
Adding Richard Smith, as he was the one choosing C99/!freestanding for runtime
rounding.
Comment at: lib/Basic/Targets.cpp:4790
@@ -4779,1 +4789,3 @@
+if (!Opts.C11)
+ Builder.defineMacro("__SUP
rengolin added a subscriber: rengolin.
rengolin added a comment.
Hi John,
Can you expand a bit more on why you need this, what's the use case, and
hopefully attach a test for them?
cheers,
--renato
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12903
__
rengolin added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12903#247075, @john.brawn wrote:
> The use-case is loading llvm plugins that add optimization passes via the
> PassManagerBuilder::addGlobalExtension mechanism (i.e. just loading the
> plugin is enough and you don't have to add anything extr
rengolin added a comment.
Hi John,
Looks all right to me, but I don't want to approve without someone more
familiar with the -load option to agree that this is not an exclusively
internal option.
Other than that, I'm happy with it.
cheers,
--renato
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm
rengolin added a comment.
Shouldn't we use -fplugin in the driver as well? Then translate to -load in cc1?
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12903
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/ma
rengolin added a comment.
Hi Vladmir,
Can you explain what the crash was?
cheers,
--renato
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13013
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
rengolin added a comment.
Richard,
The original patch was following a lot from the AArch64, so I suspect we should
first fix the AArch64 side, so that we can follow in a similar way. I don't
want to have two different behaviour for ARM and AArch64 regarding macros and
ACLE support. But I also
rengolin added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12633#249966, @richard.barton.arm wrote:
> I think clang ought to take a conservative stance when setting these flags.
Exactly my point. This is one of the few examples where being pragmatic may
lead to big headaches in the future. :)
htt
On 21 September 2015 at 09:37, James Molloy via cfe-commits
wrote:
> I have reverted this in r248173 because the pre-commmit review was not
> completed.
Thanks James!
-renato
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org
rengolin accepted this revision.
rengolin added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Apart from the style nitpick, LGTM. Thanks!
Comment at: lib/Driver/Tools.cpp:6139
@@ +6138,3 @@
+ ArchKind = llvm::ARM::parseCPUArch(Triple.getARMCPUForArch(Arch));
+
On 21 September 2015 at 17:46, Nico Weber via cfe-commits
wrote:
> Author: nico
> Date: Mon Sep 21 19:46:21 2015
> New Revision: 248234
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=248234&view=rev
> Log:
> ms Intrin.h: Fix __movsw's and __stosw's inline asm.
Hi Nico,
This still seems to be b
rengolin added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12633#250612, @labrinea wrote:
> __ARM_FP_FAST is defined to 1 if floating-point optimizations may occur such
> that the computed results are different from those prescribed by the order of
> operations according to the C standard. Examples
rengolin added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12903#249406, @thakis wrote:
> Also also, this approach fundamentally doesn't work on Windows.
I don't think it's supposed to, anyway. :)
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12903
rengolin added a comment.
IIUC, HF builds still produce soft float attributes, and that's the problem.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12996
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
On 1 October 2015 at 05:19, Piotr Padlewski via cfe-commits
wrote:
> Author: prazek
> Date: Wed Sep 30 23:19:45 2015
> New Revision: 248984
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=248984&view=rev
> Log:
> Test fix
Almost there... :)
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a1
Author: rengolin
Date: Thu Oct 1 07:58:41 2015
New Revision: 249005
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=249005&view=rev
Log:
Revert "Decorating virtual functions load with invariant.load" and fix
This reverts commit r248982 as it was breaking the ARM buildbots and the fix
didn't work.
Right, I reverted both commits on r249005. Please, let me know if you
need help testing on ARM before the next commit. This looks like it
could be tested on any 32-bit platform, though, so you should be able
to get it passing on ARM if you test and make it pass on x86.
On 1 October 2015 at 09:44,
rengolin accepted this revision.
rengolin added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Sorry, I've been redirected elsewhere for a few days.
I agree that this is the best option, since that's the meaning of the flag,
anyway.
LGTM.
--renato
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12633
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Basic/Targets.cpp:4456
@@ -4455,3 +4455,1 @@
-if (ArchVersion < 6 ||
- (ArchVersion == 6 && ArchProfile == llvm::ARM::PK_M))
Why is this not necessary any more?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13217
_
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Basic/Targets.cpp:4456
@@ -4455,3 +4455,1 @@
-if (ArchVersion < 6 ||
- (ArchVersion == 6 && ArchProfile == llvm::ARM::PK_M))
labrinea wrote:
> rengolin wrote:
> > Why is this not necessary any more?
> T
rengolin accepted this revision.
rengolin added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Absolutely agree. If we miss some other target, we should add it there, too,
not cover later. LGTM. Thanks!
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13217
_
rengolin added a subscriber: rengolin.
rengolin accepted this revision.
rengolin added a reviewer: rengolin.
rengolin added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Makes sense. LGTM. Thanks!
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13498
___
cfe
On 13 August 2015 at 07:15, Yaron Keren via cfe-commits
wrote:
> CHECK-EIGHT is failing bots, see
>
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x86_64-ubuntu-gdb-75/builds/24306/steps/check-all/logs/FAIL%3A%20Clang%3A%3Adependency-gen.c
That check only works if compiler-rt is built in, and support
Author: rengolin
Date: Wed Aug 19 10:24:03 2015
New Revision: 245449
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=245449&view=rev
Log:
[AArch64] Quick fix for cxa demangler
This makes all libcxxabi tests pass on AArch64. Further changes and
new tests to come.
Patch by Keith Walker.
Modified:
rengolin added a comment.
I'm surprised you decided to rearrange the output of the macros. It makes
reviewing a lot harder. Is there some special reason to have that in any
specific order?
Comment at: lib/Basic/Targets.cpp:4621
@@ -4586,1 +4620,3 @@
+Builder.defineMacro("_
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Driver/Tools.cpp:4254
@@ -4253,2 +4253,3 @@
if (getToolChain().getArch() == llvm::Triple::aarch64 ||
- getToolChain().getArch() == llvm::Triple::aarch64_be)
+ getToolChain().getArch() == llvm::Triple::aarch64_be ||
+
Author: rengolin
Date: Fri Aug 28 14:34:53 2015
New Revision: 246319
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=246319&view=rev
Log:
Revert "[X86][F16C] Added debug codegen test for F16C intrinsics"
This reverts commit r246204, as it was breaking all ARM/AArch64 bots.
Modified:
cfe/trunk/t
Hi Simon,
I've reverted this commit in r246319, as it broke all ARM/AArch64 bots
and lots of other errors accumulated.
cheers,
--renato
On 27 August 2015 at 21:34, Simon Pilgrim via cfe-commits
wrote:
> Author: rksimon
> Date: Thu Aug 27 15:34:02 2015
> New Revision: 246204
>
> URL: http://llv
Author: rengolin
Date: Fri Aug 28 14:36:27 2015
New Revision: 246320
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=246320&view=rev
Log:
Revert "[X86][FMA4] Added debug codegen test for FMA4 intrinsics"
This reverts commit r246206, as it broke all ARM/AArch64 bots.
Modified:
cfe/trunk/test/Cod
Hi Simon,
This one too, reverted in r246320.
cheers,
--renato
On 27 August 2015 at 21:41, Simon Pilgrim via cfe-commits
wrote:
> Author: rksimon
> Date: Thu Aug 27 15:41:45 2015
> New Revision: 246206
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=246206&view=rev
> Log:
> [X86][FMA4] Added de
And this one, too, in r246321.
--renato
On 27 August 2015 at 22:32, Simon Pilgrim via cfe-commits
wrote:
> Author: rksimon
> Date: Thu Aug 27 16:32:03 2015
> New Revision: 246211
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=246211&view=rev
> Log:
> [X86][XOP] Added debug codegen test for XOP
Author: rengolin
Date: Fri Aug 28 14:38:05 2015
New Revision: 246321
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=246321&view=rev
Log:
Revert "[X86][XOP] Added debug codegen test for XOP intrinsics"
This reverts commit r246211, as it broke all ARM/AArch64 bots.
Modified:
cfe/trunk/test/CodeG
Author: rengolin
Date: Fri Aug 28 14:39:29 2015
New Revision: 246323
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=246323&view=rev
Log:
Revert "[X86][3DNow] Added debug codegen test for 3DNow! intrinsics"
This reverts commit r246223, as it broke all ARM/AArch64 bots.
Modified:
cfe/trunk/test/
And finally this one in r246323.
Please, move all those tests to an X86 specific area and check the
AArch64 bots after commit to make sure it passes.
You probably didn't get the email because the bot was broken when you
committed, then all your other commits were breaking a broken bot. :)
cheers
Thanks!
On 28 Aug 2015 9:33 pm, "Simon Pilgrim" wrote:
> Thanks for the heads up Renato. I've a candidate fix (it was missing
> REQUIRES: x86-registered-target) and will commit it later and keep an extra
> eye on the non-x86 buildbots.
>
> On 28/08/2015 20:41, Renato Golin wrote:
>
>> And finally
On 29 August 2015 at 09:32, David Majnemer via cfe-commits
wrote:
> Author: majnemer
> Date: Sat Aug 29 03:32:55 2015
> New Revision: 246359
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=246359&view=rev
> Log:
> [AST] Don't crash when comparing incomplete object
>
> We cannot tell if an object
On 30 August 2015 at 08:51, Chandler Carruth via cfe-commits
wrote:
> Author: chandlerc
> Date: Sun Aug 30 02:51:18 2015
> New Revision: 246375
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=246375&view=rev
> Log:
> Update for several APIs in LLVM that now use StringRefs rather than
> const char
On 1 September 2015 at 15:49, Aaron Ballman via cfe-commits
wrote:
> Author: aaronballman
> Date: Tue Sep 1 09:49:24 2015
> New Revision: 246548
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=246548&view=rev
> Log:
> Add a new frontend warning for referencing members from the handler of a
> co
On 1 September 2015 at 18:15, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> It seems unlikely as this shouldn't effect codegen. None of the other
> bots seem to be red because it either. FWIW, my tests were 32-bit x86
> on Windows 10 with MSVC 2015.
Ok, I cleared the stage2 build directory, let's see how this build goe
On 1 September 2015 at 18:17, Renato Golin wrote:
> Ok, I cleared the stage2 build directory, let's see how this build goes...
>
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15-selfhost-neon/builds/3248
Nah, there is something definitely wrong with that. I'll bisect here
to make sure it
On 1 September 2015 at 19:23, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
>> On 1 September 2015 at 18:17, Renato Golin wrote:
>>> Ok, I cleared the stage2 build directory, let's see how this build goes...
>>>
>>> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7
On 1 September 2015 at 20:09, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> Like a parameter/local misalignment?
Yes, I think due to placement new for inherited classes, ignoring the
padding between the base class and the inherited extra.
Anyway, it's not your commit, as I just got a failure on my other box
with 24654
rengolin added a comment.
Hi Alexandros,
Sorry, I was on holidays. Apart from my comment, everything else looks good.
cheers,
--renato
Comment at: lib/Basic/Targets.cpp:4790
@@ +4789,3 @@
+ Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_FEATURE_SAT", "1");
+ Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_F
rengolin added a comment.
Also, the target parser code has changed, please make sure it still works with
the new version.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12244
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/l
rengolin accepted this revision.
rengolin added a reviewer: rengolin.
rengolin added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM, thanks!
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12148
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
htt
On 3 September 2015 at 10:34, Oliver Stannard via cfe-commits
wrote:
> Author: olista01
> Date: Thu Sep 3 04:34:53 2015
> New Revision: 246755
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=246755&view=rev
> Log:
> [ARM] Allow passing/returning of __fp16 arguments
>
> The ACLE (ARM C Language E
rengolin added a comment.
I don't like the idea of making it language-specific, but I don't have a better
idea. I don't know if there are support flags in Clang's languages like we have
for back-ends. Anyway, this should fix the current problem. Maybe adding a
comment to that effect on the usag
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Basic/Targets.cpp:4790
@@ +4789,3 @@
+ Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_FEATURE_SAT", "1");
+ Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_FEATURE_QBIT", "1");
+}
labrinea wrote:
> rengolin wrote:
> > Isn't there a combination
rengolin accepted this revision.
rengolin added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
With the changes you proposed, LGTM. Thanks!
http://reviews.llvm.org/D12244
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://li
Author: rengolin
Date: Thu Oct 8 11:43:26 2015
New Revision: 249699
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=249699&view=rev
Log:
Simplify DefaultCPU in ARMTargetInfo
Simplifying the convoluted CPU handling in ARMTargetInfo.
The default base CPU on ARM is ARM7TDMI, arch ARMv4T, and
ARMTarge
On 14 October 2015 at 10:22, Angel Garcia Gomez via cfe-commits
wrote:
> Author: angelgarcia
> Date: Wed Oct 14 04:22:32 2015
> New Revision: 250283
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=250283&view=rev
> Log:
> Support every kind of initialization.
Hi, this broke our ARM bots:
http:/
rengolin accepted this revision.
rengolin added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM. Thanks!
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13930
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/li
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: test/Driver/arm-ias-Wa.s:67
@@ +66,3 @@
+// == Triple
+// RUN: %clang -target armv7a-arm-none-eabi -c %s -### 2>&1 \
+// RUN: | FileCheck -check-prefix=CHECK-A-PROFILE %s
rengolin accepted this revision.
rengolin added a comment.
I wish there was a way to get the info if a target is thumb-only, but this is
ok as an intermediate solution. :)
LGTM too, thanks!
http://reviews.llvm.org/D14121
___
cfe-commits mailing li
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChain.cpp:485
@@ +484,3 @@
+if ((ARM::parseArchProfile(Suffix) == ARM::PK_M) ||
+(InputType != types::TY_PP_Asm &&
+ Args.hasFlag(options::OPT_mthumb, options::OPT_mno_thumb,
ThumbDefault)))
--
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChain.cpp:485
@@ +484,3 @@
+if ((ARM::parseArchProfile(Suffix) == ARM::PK_M) ||
+(InputType != types::TY_PP_Asm &&
+ Args.hasFlag(options::OPT_mthumb, options::OPT_mno_thumb,
ThumbDefault)))
--
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChain.cpp:472
@@ -471,2 +471,3 @@
+bool ThumbDefault = (ARM::parseArchProfile(Suffix) == ARM::PK_M) ||
(Suffix.startswith("v7") && getTriple().isOSBinFormatMachO());
// FIXME: this is invalid for WindowsCE
rengolin added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D14121#276389, @t.p.northover wrote:
> If you're on Linux or something you need "clang -target x86_64-apple-darwin
> -arch armv7 -c tmp.s".
x86_64 + ARMv7? This doesn't make sense... What is this trying to achieve?
> I suspect the reason fo
On 27 October 2015 at 18:15, Tim Northover via cfe-commits
wrote:
> It sets the underlying platform to a Darwin one so that -arch armv7 flag
> works as expected.
Still looks weird. I don't think this should work at all, as in, the
driver should emit an error like "no such arch". But that's not
re
rengolin added a comment.
LGTM, thanks!
http://reviews.llvm.org/D14121
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
On 28 October 2015 at 16:33, Galina Kistanova via llvm-commits
wrote:
> E-mail notification has been changed in the buildmaster. Now it should not
> count interrupted builds to figure out if notification should be send.
Thanks Galina, that'll reduce the noise considerably!
cheers,
--renato
_
On 30 October 2015 at 10:35, Vasileios Kalintiris via cfe-commits
wrote:
> Author: vkalintiris
> Date: Fri Oct 30 05:35:38 2015
> New Revision: 251695
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=251695&view=rev
> Log:
> Try to run and investigate the mips-mti-linux.c test failure on ARM build
Author: rengolin
Date: Fri Oct 30 06:12:36 2015
New Revision: 251696
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=251696&view=rev
Log:
Revert "Try to run and investigate the mips-mti-linux.c test failure on ARM
buildbots."
This reverts commit r251695. Debug is meant to be done off tree, not use
rengolin added reviewers: jroelofs, t.p.northover.
rengolin added subscribers: jroelofs, t.p.northover.
rengolin added a comment.
You forgot to add the context. It makes a big difference in the driver code. :)
But overall, looks good to me.
@jroelofs @compnerd @t.p.northover, can you see anythin
On 30 October 2015 at 11:42, Vasileios Kalintiris
wrote:
> I'm sorry for any inconvenience I might have caused. I was waiting to commit
> this early in the morning, near the end of the week, when the commit activity
> is low.
This shouldn't be done even during weekends or low commit activity.
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp:458
@@ +457,3 @@
+StringRef Value = A->getValue();
+bool Valid = llvm::StringSwitch(Value)
+ .Case("default", true)
tinti wrote:
> tinti wrote:
> > compnerd wrote:
> > > I
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: buildbot/osuosl/master/config/builders.py:874
@@ -842,1 +873,3 @@
'CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS': '-mcpu=cortex-a15'})},
+
+# Cortex-A15 -fno-exceptions libcxx build (skips libcxx tests)
I'd lik
rengolin added a comment.
Hi Asiri,
Can I propose a different approach?
We now have a silent buildbot, which will never email people about breakages,
but can be publicly monitored by you, me and others. I'm assuming you have
access to at least one x86 and one ARM machines, so that you could se
rengolin added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D14293#281176, @jroelofs wrote:
> I think this ^ is a reasonable solution.
I'm fine with that, as long as everyone's happy.
160 XFAILs are ok (as long as you're fixing them), disabling the tests makes no
sense. :)
cheers,
--renato
http:/
rengolin accepted this revision.
rengolin added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM. Thanks!
http://reviews.llvm.org/D14384
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/li
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Driver/Tools.cpp:3415
@@ -3414,1 +3414,3 @@
+ CmdArgs.push_back("-meabi");
+ if (Arg *A = Args.getLastArg(options::OPT_meabi))
Shouldn't we only add the option if it was used in the command line?
===
rengolin accepted this revision.
rengolin added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM, thanks!
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D14184
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm
Author: rengolin
Date: Mon Nov 9 06:40:41 2015
New Revision: 252463
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=252463&view=rev
Log:
[EABI] Add Clang support for -meabi flag
The -meabi flag to control LLVM EABI version.
Without '-meabi' or with '-meabi default' imply LLVM triple default.
With
rengolin closed this revision.
rengolin added a comment.
r252463
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D14184
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
rengolin added a comment.
Hi Akira,
I'm uncomfortable with this change, since it introduces a dependency between
the two calls, and that's fragile. Also, the nullptr fiddling is not a good
design overall.
If there is a dependency, I suggest you encode it directly into
getAArch64TargetFeatures
rengolin added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D14471#285492, @ahatanak wrote:
> Which two calls? Do you mean getAArch64TargetCPU and
> getAArch64ArchFeaturesFromMcpu?
No, the two getAArch64TargetCPU calls, but they don't even get called twice,
and the value is write-only. Ignore that.
rengolin added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D14471#286380, @ahatanak wrote:
> I think I can use macro __aarch64__ to have getAArch64TargetCPU return
> "native" when the compiler is not run on an AArch64 platform, but it doesn't
> sound like that was what you had in mind?
Not at all.
rengolin added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D14471#287635, @ahatanak wrote:
> I didn't include a test case because I didn't know how to write a test that
> passes on an aarch64 host and fails on anything else. Do you know of any test
> cases in trunk that pass or fail depending on whic
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:8-9
@@ +7,4 @@
+
+This is a proposal to move our current revision control system from Subversion
+to GitHub. Below are the financial and technical arguments as to why we need
+such a move and how will people (an
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64371.
rengolin added a comment.
Second round of suggestions applied.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
Files:
docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
Index: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
===
--- /dev/null
+++
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:198
@@ +197,3 @@
+3. Make sure we have an llvm-project (with submodules) setup in the official
+ account.
+4. Make sure bisecting with llvm-project works.
mehdi_amini wrote:
> Uh, this point i
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64373.
rengolin added a comment.
Removing "broken" to describe the history, just explaining it'll be local.
Expanding to mention that hooks will need to be implemented in step 3.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
Files:
docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
Index: d
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:200
@@ +199,3 @@
+
+Here's a proposed plan:
+
You can click on the "<<" button and it will show where it was first inserted.
That's how I found out. :)
The hooks, AFAICS, will be added to the
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:208
@@ +207,3 @@
+3. Make sure we have an llvm-project (with submodules) setup in the official
+ account, with all necessary hooks (history, update, merges).
+4. Make sure bisecting with llvm-project works.
--
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64383.
rengolin added a comment.
Expand step 2 to make sure we don't forget about the safety hooks on each
project as well as the webhook to update the umbrella project. This could turn
out to be a buildbot, but makes no difference at this stage.
https://
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:209
@@ +208,3 @@
+ well as a webhook to update the umbrella project (see below).
+3. Make sure we have an llvm-project (with submodules) setup in the official
+ account, with all necessary hooks (history, up
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:68
@@ +67,3 @@
+ * Collaborate with peers directly, even without access to the Internet
+ * Have multiple trees without multiplying disk space, multiple concurrent
builds
+
vsk wrote:
> What do
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64467.
rengolin added a comment.
More updates, following recent comments.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
Files:
docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
Index: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
===
--- /dev/null
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64468.
rengolin added a comment.
Formatting issues (bullet points)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
Files:
docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
Index: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
===
--- /dev/null
+++ do
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64469.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
Files:
docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
Index: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
===
--- /dev/null
+++ docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,254 @@
+===
rengolin added a comment.
You will not be required to use submodules at all, as we'll all use the
individual projects, like we have always been. I don't understand why people
keep going back to it.
Having a single repository was part of the original proposal for years, and
every time it was sh
rengolin added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463#489483, @jlebar wrote:
> Again, we can make this work with submodules, but it's a giant pain, see my
> earlier comment.
(...)
> I've read as many of these as I can find in the past few hours, and every
> argument I have found is, i
rengolin accepted this revision.
rengolin added a reviewer: rengolin.
rengolin added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
I'm auto accepting this proposal, as it seems to have ran its course.
The commit is r276097.
If anyone has any additional comment/suggestion, please su
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: src/UnwindRegistersRestore.S:325
@@ -324,4 +324,3 @@
DEFINE_LIBUNWIND_PRIVATE_FUNCTION(_ZN9libunwind13Registers_arm20restoreCoreAndJumpToEv)
-#if !defined(__ARM_ARCH_ISA_ARM)
- ldr r2, [r0, #52]
- ldr r3, [r0, #60]
+#if !defined(__AR
101 - 200 of 337 matches
Mail list logo
