https://github.com/vgvassilev approved this pull request.
This is a low risk feature as it is maintained at a best effort basis at the
moment. LGTM!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/118077
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-comm
https://github.com/vgvassilev approved this pull request.
This is a low-risk change in use by external wasm users...
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/116766
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.
https://github.com/vgvassilev approved this pull request.
LGTM, the risk of breaking binary compatibility and user base is very low.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115848
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.or
vgvassilev wrote:
> > do we store all template variable specializations in the same place in the
> > map including the partial ones?
>
> Yes, we identify if they are partial by an additional bit.
>
> For the solution, given there might be other places need to load the
> specializations, how a
vgvassilev wrote:
> @alexfh thank you very much!
>
> @vgvassilev but we have to provide similar mechanism, so it is allowed to get
> all the specializations for a templated decl.
I think this is the code snippet we are bitten by:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/d1fae5996e66c2a9f0b1c
vgvassilev wrote:
I think we almost never should call findAll. Most of the time we have a
concrete template argument list…
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83237
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://
@@ -1827,6 +1833,12 @@ void ASTDeclWriter::VisitVarTemplateDecl(VarTemplateDecl
*D) {
void ASTDeclWriter::VisitVarTemplateSpecializationDecl(
VarTemplateSpecializationDecl *D) {
+ // FIXME: We need to load the "logical" first declaration before writing
+ // the Redeclar
vgvassilev wrote:
Ok, maybe we could move forward?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90544
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
vgvassilev wrote:
@nikic, I am confused. How is that an abi breaking change?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90544
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-br
vgvassilev wrote:
> > Can you export all files into a standalone reproducer? I might be able to
> > reduce an example.
>
> Not really, this is why it's taking so long. Our infrastructure in that space
> is lacking, the issue is that the root case is not in one compilation step,
> but rather i
vgvassilev wrote:
Can you export all files into a standalone reproducer? I might be able to
reduce an example.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83237
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.
vgvassilev wrote:
> Btw, if I don't respond timely to these requests and you need an urgent
> reaction, feel free to ping me via email at
> [ibiryu...@google.com](mailto:ibiryu...@google.com). We heavily use Clang
> header modules internally at Google and we are really interested in helping
>
vgvassilev wrote:
> @ilya-biryukov hi, the functional and performance test on the root side looks
> good: [root-project/root#14495
> (comment)](https://github.com/root-project/root/pull/14495#issuecomment-1980589145)
>
> Could you try to test this within google internals?
>
> Also if your pro
vgvassilev wrote:
> The error message looks odd since the language options shouldn't be involved.
Sorry, I did not push. Now you can take a look.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83237
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@
vgvassilev wrote:
> @vgvassilev this may be ready to test.
I triggered a test here: https://github.com/root-project/root/pull/14495
I still need to verify if I did not screw up bringing your changes back to our
builds but locally it crashes quite early with:
```
0 rootcling_stage1
vgvassilev wrote:
> > > > Can you rebase on top of #83108 ? That'd make it easier for me to
> > > > review.
> > >
> > >
> > > Weird. It should be on top of #83108 already.
> > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commits/users/ChuanqiXu9/D41416_on_disk_hash_table/
> >
> >
> > Ah, it is a
vgvassilev wrote:
> > Can you rebase on top of #83108 ? That'd make it easier for me to review.
>
> Weird. It should be on top of #83108 already.
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commits/users/ChuanqiXu9/D41416_on_disk_hash_table/
Ah, it is a single commit that includes what's in the oth
vgvassilev wrote:
Can you rebase on top of https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83108 ?
That'd make it easier for me to review.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83233
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.or
vgvassilev wrote:
@ChuanqiXu9, I managed to push the commit here back to
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76774 and we can continue the
discussion there. Would that be sufficient?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77417
___
llvm-bran
vgvassilev wrote:
Let me try something.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77417
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
Author: Vassil Vassilev
Date: 2021-01-05T09:43:38Z
New Revision: 02eb8e20b51b3ea263bbfe696241b8541c72ee7a
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/02eb8e20b51b3ea263bbfe696241b8541c72ee7a
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/02eb8e20b51b3ea263bbfe696241b8541c72ee7a.diff
LO
21 matches
Mail list logo
