https://github.com/ilovepi edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/160166
___
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/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/160166
>From 632536e381904a570df09bbe7aed730815deb4a8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 16:26:04 +
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Avoid excessive hash lookups in
EscapeStringStrea
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159193
>From ddcaf1691fbb84374ee8d5b9dfffb80e224ecd2b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2025 23:21:07 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Simplify debug logging
---
llvm/lib/Support/Must
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159197
>From b68de048650c907ce46aabe728f243c45bf3ba65 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:11:47 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Avoid redundant saves in accessor splitting
The s
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159190
>From 0b15e73c2fe65eaca4917b8beda50ecf01061cb5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:24:31 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Use StringRef parameters
---
llvm/lib/Support/Mu
https://github.com/ilovepi created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/160166
The naive char-by-char lookup performed OK, but we can skip ahead to the
next match, avoiding all the extra hash lookups in the key map. Likely
there is a faster method than this, but its already a 42% win in the
https://github.com/ilovepi created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/160165
Delimiters in mustache are generally 2-4 character sequences. While good
for general search, we can beat find() for these short sequences by just
using memchr() to find the first match, and then checking the next
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159187
>From fbd889474300053fc91ee656753a13c30fce67dc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2025 21:22:02 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Support setting delimiters in templates
The base m
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159186
>From c3b7fae3695f64868ed7da1cd63baee1d4e94f46 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 23:55:25 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Precommit test for Set Delimiter
Adds a new unit
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159198
>From 2de3866f5b7d2783da3f88ee2095ee43743e17c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:24:43 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Optimize accessor splitting with a single
pass
T
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159192
>From d5312d1ac178c5505bc4584c730195d9b12c1daa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 17:16:08 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Fix failing StandaloneIndentation test
When rende
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159195
>From 1389ea30a5080a6bc76b76ffdcf43a361885d5e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 19:54:34 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Avoid extra copy for json strings
---
llvm/lib/S
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159198
>From 2de3866f5b7d2783da3f88ee2095ee43743e17c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:24:43 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Optimize accessor splitting with a single
pass
T
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159187
>From 7cea784823cb90b6f6030f7241a50d4040fab6a1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2025 21:22:02 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Support setting delimiters in templates
The base m
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159189
>From 6a7db43434fb7657ac6057a18f95b52fa706347c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:06:14 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Refactor template rendering
Move the rendering lo
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159199
>From 5c65ae1e875260c109b3d8f4b6625c8a49a45313 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 09:40:04 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Avoid extra allocations in parseSection
We don't
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159185
>From 31dc0edd7d3145d989d1132ce013f8579a5a284d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 23:26:29 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Align standalone partial indentation with
spec
T
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159188
>From 97182cf5770867345323c9e7af7d9b69fa3e678d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 23:45:16 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Refactor tokenizer for clarity
This patch refacto
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159193
>From e89315c0fdb99341871652728d877e1b88d5237d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2025 23:21:07 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Simplify debug logging
---
llvm/lib/Support/Must
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159187
>From 7cea784823cb90b6f6030f7241a50d4040fab6a1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2025 21:22:02 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Support setting delimiters in templates
The base m
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159196
>From b929e27245223a126e2835a3440f1ae4f0a5aa57 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 23:27:50 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Use single pass when tokenizing
The old implement
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159194
>From b95282ae8b0c214bc01e2bb6972ec1f1108d51b3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 16:26:11 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Use BumpPtrAllocator to save ASTNodes
We make the
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159197
>From 1acd65547a95bfc1afc24bfb03167375f171933b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:11:47 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Avoid redundant saves in accessor splitting
The s
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159198
>From f5b321027fd1d0215d6bea358aee0b94a2431a08 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 00:24:43 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Optimize accessor splitting with a single
pass
T
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159199
>From ac3d77f94baf7a3fd413816153209c4cb64538a7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 09:40:04 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Avoid extra allocations in parseSection
We don't
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159184
>From db6bc75e9aab9307b3443047ff2c42ccc4d76270 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 22:30:51 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Precommit test for StandaloneIndentation
---
llv
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159195
>From 749306f161b925e502ad85577dd99ed89216e3c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 19:54:34 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Avoid extra copy for json strings
---
llvm/lib/S
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159190
>From e79233da33b30f1c3bdbc8b5d0f18f0ee1909053 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:24:31 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Use StringRef parameters
---
llvm/lib/Support/Mu
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159191
>From f441a1c616e00020b87a2420ec4828d250e59486 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 16:20:44 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Introduce MustacheContext to simplify
mustache AP
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159185
>From f2623ab3a25c5c1ef399a80bfcea10d761cba190 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 23:26:29 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Align standalone partial indentation with
spec
T
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159183
>From 30e848972cf380f7d726912419f2ba5c51341546 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 21:46:49 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Add support for Triple Mustache
We extend the log
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159188
>From 6f78e4d2ac7a182233a966c1e0a83d730deb24d0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 23:45:16 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [llvm][mustache] Refactor tokenizer for clarity
This patch refacto
https://github.com/ilovepi approved this pull request.
This seems fine to me, especially since it follows our written policy on
version support.
Does this need any kind of release note? It's a pure dev dependency, so I'd say
"no", but I could also see how a consumer would have wanted to know a
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+# RUN: echo "// comment" > %t.input
+# RUN: which llvm-mc | %python %s %t
+
+import subprocess
+import sys
+
+llvm_mc_binary = sys.stdin.readlines()[0].strip()
+temp_file = sys.argv[1]
+input_file = temp_file + ".input"
+
+with open(temp_file, "w") as mc_stdout:
https://github.com/ilovepi approved this pull request.
LGTM. IMO this is a much nicer way to test a property on `stdin`'s positioning.
Lets get a bit more consensus from other maintainers before landing though.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/157232
___
https://github.com/ilovepi approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/158464
___
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/ilovepi approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/158465
___
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/ilovepi approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/158463
___
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/ilovepi approved this pull request.
I slightly wonder if we should accept `-` too, but I doubt that would see much
use in the tests. I figure we can cross that bridge if something needs it.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/158447
_
https://github.com/ilovepi approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/158446
___
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/ilovepi approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/157958
___
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/ilovepi approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/157977
___
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/ilovepi approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/157588
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
ilovepi wrote:
> Somewhat off-topic for this PR, but why can't `REQUIRES: shell` force use of
> shell even if internal shell is the default? Then we don't lose test coverage
> and don't block this on migration of the long-tail of tests.
Previously, we've discussed giving lit a hybrid mode tha
https://github.com/ilovepi edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/157232
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
ilovepi wrote:
Should we update the lit implementation handling for `not`/`env` to avoid
reordering those two commands when combined?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/157236
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.
ilovepi wrote:
I don't know if I understand what you're going for in this patch. How is this
an improvement over just keeping `REQUIRES: shell`? The `REQUIRES: ` bit is
what's going to stop the test from running in the wrong environment. That seems
like the right tradeoff.
https://github.c
https://github.com/ilovepi approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/157237
___
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/ilovepi approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/157234
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
ilovepi wrote:
Closing, since I think we're definitely moving away from this approach, and
will be pursuing some of the ideas discussed w/ @efriedma-quic and others to
address the core issues rather than paper over them.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135706
___
https://github.com/ilovepi closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135706
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -126,6 +138,15 @@ static Object serializeComment(const CommentInfo &I,
Object &Description) {
auto TextCommentsArray = extractTextComments(CARef.front().getAsObject());
if (I.Name == "brief")
insertComment(Description, TextCommentsArray, "BriefComments");
+
@@ -126,6 +138,15 @@ static Object serializeComment(const CommentInfo &I,
Object &Description) {
auto TextCommentsArray = extractTextComments(CARef.front().getAsObject());
if (I.Name == "brief")
insertComment(Description, TextCommentsArray, "BriefComments");
+
ilovepi wrote:
> It'd be nice to have a test for this but I'm not sure how to check for the
> existence of something after a LIT test is done.
Why not just another `RUN` line?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/150656
___
llvm-branch-commits m
@@ -41,8 +41,8 @@ getClangDocContext(std::vector UserStylesheets =
{},
StringRef RepositoryUrl = "",
StringRef RepositoryLinePrefix = "", StringRef Base = "") {
ClangDocContext CDCtx{
- {}, "test-project", {}, {}, {}, RepositoryUr
@@ -481,9 +481,9 @@ ClangDocContext::ClangDocContext(tooling::ExecutionContext
*ECtx,
StringRef RepositoryUrl,
StringRef RepositoryLinePrefix, StringRef
Base,
std::vector UserSt
https://github.com/ilovepi approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/150648
___
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/ilovepi approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/150647
___
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/ilovepi approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/150571
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -1,40 +1,43 @@
;; Test if temporary labels are generated for each indirect callsite with a
callee_type metadata.
-;; Test if the .callgraph section contains the numerical callee type id for
each of the temporary
-;; labels generated.
+;; Test if the .callgraph section cont
@@ -2869,9 +2870,23 @@ static void setLinkageForGV(llvm::GlobalValue *GV, const
NamedDecl *ND) {
GV->setLinkage(llvm::GlobalValue::ExternalWeakLinkage);
}
+static bool hasExistingGeneralizedTypeMD(llvm::Function *F) {
+ llvm::MDNode *MD = F->getMetadata(llvm::LLVMContext
https://github.com/ilovepi edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/150470
___
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/ilovepi approved this pull request.
LGTM. Consider squashing this with the precommit tests, though. It's pretty
clear how the output changed, and all the tests just end up dropping `-NOT`,
which isn't great. plus I'd expect those tests to fail when something like a
tag match
ilovepi wrote:
Since you're just dropping the NOT prefix in the next patch, I'd consider just
squashing them together. Left a similar comment up the stack.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/150469
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-bran
ilovepi wrote:
Not totally convinced these are great precommit tests. TOday we don't emit
these, but I think some of the tags will probably end up matching on later
lines (at least I'd expect them to). Would be fine dropping this and just
taking the patch after, since its clear how the functio
@@ -259,7 +259,24 @@ HTML-CALC:
HTML-CALC:
HTML-CALC:
HTML-CALC:
-HTML-CALC:
+HTML-CALC-NOT:
ilovepi wrote:
Won't this check bre
https://github.com/ilovepi edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/150468
___
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/ilovepi approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/150468
___
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/ilovepi edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/150467
___
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/ilovepi approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/150467
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
ilovepi wrote:
I think this is mostly in good shape, but some of the tests could be reduced
slightly using the method I gave in an another one of your PRs. After that its
probably LGTM from my perspective.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87575
___
@@ -210,12 +229,17 @@ serializeCommonAttributes(const Info &I, json::Object
&Obj,
}
if (!I.Description.empty()) {
-json::Value DescArray = json::Array();
-auto &DescArrayRef = *DescArray.getAsArray();
-DescArrayRef.reserve(I.Description.size());
-for (cons
@@ -60,6 +60,17 @@ HTML-SHAPE:
HTML-SHAPE:
HTML-SHAPE:
HTML-SHAPE: class Shape
+HTML-SHAPE:
+HTML-SHAPE:
+HTML-SHAPE: Abstr
https://github.com/ilovepi approved this pull request.
LGTM, except the Q on formatting. Obviously doesn't need to be solved in this
patch, though.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/149565
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commi
https://github.com/ilovepi edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/149565
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -60,6 +60,17 @@ HTML-SHAPE:
HTML-SHAPE:
HTML-SHAPE:
HTML-SHAPE: class Shape
+HTML-SHAPE:
+HTML-SHAPE:
+HTML-SHAPE: Abstr
@@ -210,12 +229,17 @@ serializeCommonAttributes(const Info &I, json::Object
&Obj,
}
if (!I.Description.empty()) {
-json::Value DescArray = json::Array();
-auto &DescArrayRef = *DescArray.getAsArray();
-DescArrayRef.reserve(I.Description.size());
-for (cons
https://github.com/ilovepi commented:
This seems mostly fine. I'll probably LGTM once I go through the whole stack.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/149564
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.l
https://github.com/ilovepi edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/149564
___
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/ilovepi approved this pull request.
LGTM, modulo formatting and 1 small suggestion.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146165
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-b
https://github.com/ilovepi edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146165
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -947,6 +952,53 @@ emitInfo(const NamespaceDecl *D, const FullComment *FC,
Location Loc,
return {std::move(NSI), makeAndInsertIntoParent(*NSI)};
}
+static void parseFriends(RecordInfo &RI, const CXXRecordDecl *D) {
+ if (D->hasDefinition() && D->hasFriends())
---
https://github.com/ilovepi approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146164
___
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/ilovepi edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145070
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -25,7 +24,7 @@ typedef int MyTypedef;
// CHECK-NEXT: {
// CHECK-NEXT:"Location": {
// CHECK-NEXT: "Filename": "{{.*}}namespace.cpp",
-// CHECK-NEXT: "LineNumber": 15
+// CHECK-NEXT: "LineNumber": 14
ilovepi wrote:
Sho
https://github.com/ilovepi approved this pull request.
LGTM, w/ one Q about the test expr. I could go either way on that, so its up to
you.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145070
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists
https://github.com/ilovepi approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145069
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -211,6 +214,15 @@ struct TemplateSpecializationInfo {
std::vector Params;
};
+struct ConstraintInfo {
+ ConstraintInfo() = default;
+ ConstraintInfo(SymbolID USR, StringRef Name)
+ : ConceptRef(USR, Name, InfoType::IT_concept) {}
+ Reference ConceptRef;
+
+ Small
@@ -649,6 +693,9 @@ template <> void addTemplate(RecordInfo *I, TemplateInfo
&&P) {
template <> void addTemplate(FunctionInfo *I, TemplateInfo &&P) {
I->Template.emplace(std::move(P));
}
+template <> void addTemplate(ConceptInfo *I, TemplateInfo &&P) {
+ I->Template = std::
@@ -584,6 +613,18 @@ template <> llvm::Error addReference(RecordInfo *I,
Reference &&R, FieldId F) {
}
}
+template <>
+llvm::Error addReference(ConstraintInfo *I, Reference &&R, FieldId F) {
+ switch (F) {
+ case FieldId::F_concept:
+I->ConceptRef = std::move(R);
+
https://github.com/ilovepi edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144430
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -817,6 +872,20 @@ llvm::Error ClangDocBitcodeReader::readSubBlock(unsigned
ID, T I) {
addChild(I, std::move(TI));
return llvm::Error::success();
}
+ case BI_CONSTRAINT_BLOCK_ID: {
+ConstraintInfo CI;
+if (auto Err = readBlock(ID, &CI))
+ return Err;
@@ -248,6 +257,27 @@ static void serializeCommonChildren(const ScopeChildren
&Children,
}
}
+template
+static void serializeArray(const std::vector &Records, Object &Obj,
+ const std::string &Key,
+ SerializationFunc seri
@@ -662,6 +709,14 @@ void addTemplateSpecialization(TemplateInfo *I,
I->Specialization.emplace(std::move(TSI));
}
+template static void addConstraint(T I, ConstraintInfo &&C) {
+ llvm::errs() << "invalid container for constraint info";
+ exit(1);
+}
ilove
https://github.com/ilovepi approved this pull request.
LGTM. overall really good improvement. most of my comments are me noticing bad
existing code we should fix.
I also left a few nit comments to address, but they're rather minor.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144430
_
ilovepi wrote:
> Linux CI shows failing but looks like all tests passed despite that.
>
> Added compound constraint support which just goes through the nested
> expressions until it reaches the constraint.
I've just been clicking re-run on those when i see it. you may want to file
abug abou
https://github.com/ilovepi edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143209
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
+// RUN: rm -rf %t && mkdir -p %t
+// RUN: clang-doc --output=%t --format=json --executor=standalone %s
+// RUN: FileCheck %s < %t/GlobalNamespace/index.json
+
+class MyClass {};
+
+void myFunction(int Param);
+
+namespace NestedNamespace {
+} // namespace Nested
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+// RUN: rm -rf %t && mkdir -p %t
+// RUN: clang-doc --output=%t --format=json --executor=standalone %s
+// RUN: FileCheck %s < %t/GlobalNamespace/index.json
+
+static void myFunction() {}
+
+void noExceptFunction() noexcept {}
+
+inline void inlineFunction() {}
+
https://github.com/ilovepi approved this pull request.
LGTM. This seems like its in order, assuming CI is happy.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143209
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm
1 - 100 of 848 matches
Mail list logo
