https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/148571
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -938,6 +933,11 @@ def calloc : RuntimeLibcallImpl;
// compiler-rt, not available for most architectures
//
+def __ashlti3 : RuntimeLibcallImpl;
+def __lshrti3 : RuntimeLibcallImpl;
+def __ashrti3 : RuntimeL
https://github.com/nikic updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/147034
>From c50b409b6b523fa4b8164b80515a93b12e1b5cd4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Phoebe Wang
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 13:04:23 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] [X86] Ignore NSW when DstSVT is i32 (#131755)
We don't have PACKSS
https://github.com/nikic milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146191
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -313,6 +313,7 @@ struct Configuration {
bool warnDebugInfoUnusable = true;
bool warnLongSectionNames = true;
bool warnStdcallFixup = true;
+ bool warnExportedDllMain = true;
nikic wrote:
This is an ABI break.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pul
https://github.com/nikic commented:
Can you please pre-commit a PhaseOrdering test that demonstrates the problem
you are trying to solve? It's hard to understand whether this is the correct
solution to the problem without an actual test case.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145613
__
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146191
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -235,29 +247,57 @@ void
RuntimeLibcallEmitter::emitGetInitRuntimeLibcallNames(
// TODO: Emit libcall names as string offset table.
OS << "#ifdef GET_INIT_RUNTIME_LIBCALL_NAMES\n"
-"const char *const "
+"const RTLIB::LibcallImpl "
"llvm::RTLIB::
@@ -235,29 +247,57 @@ void
RuntimeLibcallEmitter::emitGetInitRuntimeLibcallNames(
// TODO: Emit libcall names as string offset table.
OS << "#ifdef GET_INIT_RUNTIME_LIBCALL_NAMES\n"
-"const char *const "
+"const RTLIB::LibcallImpl "
"llvm::RTLIB::
@@ -882,7 +902,7 @@ def exp10f128 : RuntimeLibcallImpl;
def sinf128 : RuntimeLibcallImpl;
def cosf128 : RuntimeLibcallImpl;
def tanf128 : RuntimeLibcallImpl;
-def tanhf128 : RuntimeLibcallImpl;
+def tanhf128 : RuntimeLibcallImpl;
nikic wrote:
Should probably b
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144973
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144973
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -235,29 +247,57 @@ void
RuntimeLibcallEmitter::emitGetInitRuntimeLibcallNames(
// TODO: Emit libcall names as string offset table.
OS << "#ifdef GET_INIT_RUNTIME_LIBCALL_NAMES\n"
-"const char *const "
+"const RTLIB::LibcallImpl "
"llvm::RTLIB::
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145054
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145054
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
nikic wrote:
Could you please also add a negative test where extractvalue does not simplify
(e.g. same as current but swap 0 and 1).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145054
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing li
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144692
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144696
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -321,6 +321,24 @@ void RuntimeLibcallsInfo::initLibcalls(const Triple &TT) {
setLibcallName(RTLIB::OGT_F128, "__gtkf2");
setLibcallName(RTLIB::UO_F128, "__unordkf2");
+setLibcallName(RTLIB::ACOS_F128, "acosf128");
+setLibcallName(RTLIB::ASIN_F128, "asinf128"
https://github.com/nikic milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144299
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
nikic wrote:
I'm not entirely sure about this one, as this is a performance rather than
correctness fix and we're late in the release cycle. But the fix itself does
seem quite safe and it blocks clickhouse from updating to LLVM 20.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144322
_
https://github.com/nikic milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144322
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144322
Backport of https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143020 for
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/139050.
>From 9792f981063d6ddadd3678ac31e2254daa6aa9cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nikita Popov
Dat
https://github.com/nikic edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142730
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143163
Backport of
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/32837f376f3c795d3ae6e632adc4f1a60180a646.
>From 2c1c9730974c384b10bccc9f4a4f63c94377d302 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Green
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025
https://github.com/nikic milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143163
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -528,23 +528,20 @@ RuntimeLibcallSignatureTable
&getRuntimeLibcallSignatures() {
// constructor for use with a static variable
struct StaticLibcallNameMap {
StringMap Map;
- StaticLibcallNameMap() {
-static const std::pair NameLibcalls[] = {
-#define HANDLE_LIBCALL(c
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+;; Test if the callee_type metadata attached to indirect call sites adhere to
the expected format.
+
+; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llvm-dis | FileCheck %s
+define i32 @_Z13call_indirectPFicEc(ptr %func, i8 signext %x) !type !0 {
+entry:
+ %func.addr = alloca ptr, alig
@@ -1302,6 +1302,24 @@ static void addRange(SmallVectorImpl
&EndPoints,
EndPoints.push_back(High);
}
+MDNode *MDNode::getMergedCalleeTypeMetadata(LLVMContext &Ctx, MDNode *A,
+MDNode *B) {
+ SmallVector AB;
+ SmallSet MergedCall
nikic wrote:
The way FileCheck works this will pass even if the metadata is not dropped. You
could try whether `FileCheck --match-full-lines` works. Otherwise you could use
explicit `CHECK-NOT` or `{{$}}`.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87573
_
@@ -4161,6 +4161,11 @@ Instruction *InstCombinerImpl::visitCallBase(CallBase
&Call) {
Call, Builder.CreateBitOrPointerCast(ReturnedArg, CallTy));
}
+ // Drop unnecessary callee_type metadata from calls that were converted
+ // into direct calls.
+ if (Call.
@@ -3377,6 +3377,11 @@ static void combineMetadata(Instruction *K, const
Instruction *J,
K->setMetadata(Kind,
MDNode::getMostGenericAlignmentOrDereferenceable(JMD, KMD));
break;
+ case LLVMContext::MD_callee_type:
+if (!AAOnly)
+
@@ -5096,6 +5097,19 @@ void Verifier::visitCallsiteMetadata(Instruction &I,
MDNode *MD) {
visitCallStackMetadata(MD);
}
+void Verifier::visitCalleeTypeMetadata(Instruction &I, MDNode *MD) {
+ Check(isa(I), "!callee_type metadata should only exist on calls",
+&I);
+
@@ -1302,6 +1302,24 @@ static void addRange(SmallVectorImpl
&EndPoints,
EndPoints.push_back(High);
}
+MDNode *MDNode::getMergedCalleeTypeMetadata(LLVMContext &Ctx, MDNode *A,
+MDNode *B) {
+ SmallVector AB;
+ SmallSet MergedCall
@@ -1252,6 +1252,12 @@ class MDNode : public Metadata {
bool isReplaceable() const { return isTemporary() || isAlwaysReplaceable(); }
bool isAlwaysReplaceable() const { return getMetadataID() == DIAssignIDKind;
}
+ bool hasGeneralizedMDString() const {
n
@@ -1302,6 +1302,24 @@ static void addRange(SmallVectorImpl
&EndPoints,
EndPoints.push_back(High);
}
+MDNode *MDNode::getMergedCalleeTypeMetadata(LLVMContext &Ctx, MDNode *A,
+MDNode *B) {
+ SmallVector AB;
+ SmallSet MergedCall
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142886
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic requested changes to this pull request.
I do not think these tests provide value.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142536
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/c
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142311
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142311
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141957
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142039
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142031
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -7170,16 +7165,31 @@ bool X86TTIImpl::isProfitableToSinkOperands(Instruction
*I,
II->getIntrinsicID() == Intrinsic::fshr)
ShiftAmountOpNum = 2;
}
-
if (ShiftAmountOpNum == -1)
return false;
+ auto *ShiftAmount = &I->getOperandUse(ShiftAmountOpNum);
nikic wrote:
@pcc I think using fsh should at least help to get a ror instead of the
shr+shl+or.
Actually getting the value duplicated+sunk into each block is typically done in
CGP, which has a bunch of related transforms. The most generic is probably
tryToSinkFreeOperands driven by TTI.isPro
@@ -33,8 +34,11 @@ PreservedAnalyses EmbedBitcodePass::run(Module &M,
ModuleAnalysisManager &AM) {
std::string Data;
raw_string_ostream OS(Data);
+ // Clone the module with with Thin LTO, since ThinLTOBitcodeWriterPass
changes
nikic wrote:
```suggestio
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
Okay, let's go with this for now.
Compile-time impact of cloning the module is about 0.2% when building clang
with fat LTO:
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=11a01e851a06188ae946ace1140f866d7a667221&to=46e037d763e7997a83
https://github.com/nikic edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/13
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141461
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/140060
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/140902
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic commented:
I'm not super clear on what it is you're trying to fix here.
Probably LowerTypeTests should be directly emitting a fshl/fshr instead of a
bit shift sequence to make matching to rotate more reliable. Would that help
you or not?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-p
https://github.com/nikic requested changes to this pull request.
If you're using stacked pull requests, please link the other PRs from the
stack. It's impossible to understand the context otherwise. Based on just the
changes in this PR:
* The EarlyCSE and GVN changes do not make sense to me.
nikic wrote:
The LLVM 19 release is no longer supported. You'll have to apply this as a
local patch if you want to build and old LLVM 19 with a new libstdc++.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138550
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-b
https://github.com/nikic closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138550
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
nikic wrote:
@ilovepi Does it also work on the release branch? I'd mainly see the clone
module approach as something easily backportable for the release branch, but I
assume for main we'll want a different solution?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/13
_
https://github.com/nikic commented:
Didn't we switch away from cloning because it breaks blockaddress somehow?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/13
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.o
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138676
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
nikic wrote:
I think this may have been noise. I reran this and there are no differences
over the significance threshold:
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=6c1bb48cc45396894597c8cb897c31205d1bdeb6&to=1837fe71fcfb4363fd2b66cdb9ff6a82b3f380fb&stat=instructions:u
https://gith
nikic wrote:
Closing this as https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127751 has landed.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127496
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/li
https://github.com/nikic closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127496
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/139345
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -180,6 +180,10 @@ llvm::getKnowledgeForValue(const Value *V,
}
return RetainedKnowledge::none();
}
+
+ if (!V->hasUseList())
+return RetainedKnowledge::none();
nikic wrote:
As a followup, we should completely remove the non-AC code in this fu
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138961
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138737
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138729
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138638
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic commented:
Peculiarly, this has a negative effect on stage1 builds using gcc and a
positive effect on stage2 builds using clang:
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=420eca364b07bad78dc0a5d21da5980493798df0&to=00be79cbc7dea09fcd8a57ea51b3e800564fd986&s
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134794
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -73,28 +73,16 @@ static void rewriteFuncWithReturnType(Function &OldF, Value
*NewRetValue) {
}
}
- // Now prune any CFG edges we have to deal with.
- //
- // Use KeepOneInputPHIs in case the instruction we are using for the return
is
- // that phi.
- // TODO: C
https://github.com/nikic edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134794
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -5096,6 +5097,23 @@ void Verifier::visitCallsiteMetadata(Instruction &I,
MDNode *MD) {
visitCallStackMetadata(MD);
}
+void Verifier::visitCalleeTypeMetadata(Instruction &I, MDNode *MD) {
+ Check(isa(I), "!callee_type metadata should only exist on calls",
+&I);
+
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/138142
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
nikic wrote:
Looks like something went wrong here?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137702
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
nikic wrote:
> > I don't think there is a need to backport FMF propagation fixes.
>
> Is there a policy to judge whether or not to backport a miscompilation bug
> fix? Actually, it is unlikely to trigger this bug in real-world projects. But
> this fix is simple and safe to be backported.
Ther
https://github.com/nikic commented:
I don't think there is a need to backport FMF propagation fixes.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137605
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137606
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137314
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -518,17 +509,8 @@ class Value {
/// This method should only be used by the Use class.
void addUse(Use &U) {
-if (hasUseList())
- U.addToList(Uses.List);
-else
- U.addToList(Uses.Count);
- }
-
- void removeUse(Use &U) {
-if (hasUseList())
- U
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137314
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -85,10 +84,8 @@ class Use {
Use **Prev = nullptr;
User *Parent = nullptr;
- inline void addToList(unsigned &Count);
- inline void addToList(Use *&List);
- inline void removeFromList(unsigned &Count);
- inline void removeFromList(Use *&List);
+ inline void addToList
nikic wrote:
Compile-time for both PRs taken together looks good:
https://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=12a31658ea36cda74157c6b4e6b6c031e39a19c0&to=d769267079777e4fa4cf41188bfe2aab1b9361f1&stat=instructions%3Au
(For reference, this is for the first PR only:
https://llvm-compil
https://github.com/nikic commented:
The general approach here makes sense to me.
For reference, this is the diff for both PRs together, which is a bit clearer
as the second undoes half of the first:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/compare/main...users/arsenm/ir/remove-constantdata-referen
https://github.com/nikic edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137314
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic commented:
Looks like there are some polly assertion failures.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137314
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/list
nikic wrote:
@shiltian I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here. As @arsenm said, the
alloca address space in the data layout is merely a hint on the address space
to use when materializing allocas "out of thin air". There are targets that use
multiple alloca address spaces, this just spe
https://github.com/nikic milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/136589
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/136355
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/136356
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/136034
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135666
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135543
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135615
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135615
Backport of 716b02d8c575afde7af1af13df145019659abca2, with conflicts in the
test resolved.
>From e385f5c5b9bd32f89754e8088c29f42a761f2880 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Adamski
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 12:
nikic wrote:
> @nikic what do you mean by ABI change in this case? It doesn't change ABI of
> generated code, moreover it doesn't even change PCM serialized format because
> it is in memory only filed and attribute.
It changes the ABI of libclang-cpp, by changing the layout of an exported type
@@ -1392,6 +1392,10 @@ class ASTReader
llvm::DenseMap DefinitionSource;
+ /// Friend functions that were defined but might have had their bodies
+ /// removed.
+ llvm::DenseSet ThisDeclarationWasADefinitionSet;
nikic wrote:
This is an ABI break.
https:
https://github.com/nikic requested changes to this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134232
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commit
https://github.com/nikic milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134232
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic requested changes to this pull request.
Breaks LoopUtils.h ABI in obvious ways and FMF.h ABI in less obvious ways.
Can this be fixed in a more minimal way than backporting 18 commits that
include a lot of refactorings?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135231
_
https://github.com/nikic milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135231
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
1 - 100 of 545 matches
Mail list logo