Endilll wrote:
Ah, I see where the limitation comes from.
According to
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_escape_code#3-bit_and_4-bit),
there is bright blue color which many terminals display differently from
regular blue. While this means we're expanding 3-bit color palette to
Endilll wrote:
It looks a tinybit better in my local terminal, but still significantly harder
to read than the rest of the text:
But it's a bit off the point. We should pick colors that have
Endilll wrote:
The deep shade of blue doesn't make sense for both light and dark backgrounds:
Endilll wrote:
> It shouldn't be necessary to analyze uint64_t Storage directly through a
> debugger. It's handled via the Bitfield getters and setters. Is that not
> sufficient for debugging purposes?
Unfortunately, it's not. Not every debugger can run getters while displaying
the value
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify -std=c++98 %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify -std=c++11 %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify -std=c++14 %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify -std=c++17 %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify -std=c++20 %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify -std=c++23 %s
+// RUN:
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78898
>From b99a75a8756a7841657fc78ffbd40f780a412f2b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 16:26:29 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang][Sema] Add checks for validity of default ctor's
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78898
>From b99a75a8756a7841657fc78ffbd40f780a412f2b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 16:26:29 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang][Sema] Add checks for validity of default ctor's
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78898
>From b99a75a8756a7841657fc78ffbd40f780a412f2b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 16:26:29 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang][Sema] Add checks for validity of default ctor's
https://github.com/Endilll closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Endilll wrote:
I find `llvm::Bitfield` API with all its explicit setters with explicit storage
parameter clunky compared to language bit-fields. But that's minor. My major
issue with this patch is that `uint64_t Storage;` is as opaque for debuggers as
it gets. It would take so much work to
Endilll wrote:
@linux4life798 Can you review the last update?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77269
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Endilll wrote:
@linux4life798 Do you mind filing issues for the points you highlighted? Feel
free to skip this step if you (or someone else) plan to submit PRs that address
them.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77269
___
cfe-commits
Endilll wrote:
So my takeaways here are:
1. Tests that ensure we don't crash anymore are important for us.
2. `-verify` is an acceptable way to write such tests.
Is this correct?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78898
___
cfe-commits mailing
Endilll wrote:
> why can't we add -verify test? Yes, it will be checking errors that the patch
> didn't touch, but it is what mostly people do when adding clang tests and it
> will be +N test cases in a regular test base which not only ensure your
> change is correct, but the future ones too.
Endilll wrote:
> So, there is no way to consistently check on all platforms that we didn't
> crash when an error diagnostic was issued (does clang return non-zero when
> there is error diagnostic?), is that a right understanding?
Yes. On Linux and Windows `1` is returned if error diagnostic
Endilll wrote:
> Could you elaborate a bit more on that? What is the exact problem with the
> testing infrastructure? Can we just add a separate test with the cases from
> the issues, perhaps without -verify at all?
1) I think that the most reliable way to detect a crash would be to leverage
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78095
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78095
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Endilll wrote:
@linux4life798 Nice catch! I see that so far only `CompilationDatabase` and
`CompletionChunk` expose functions in camelCase. It would be nice to change
them, too, but those are decade-old APIs that _I think_ we promise stability
for, so it might not be possible.
https://github.com/Endilll closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78793
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78793
>From f6a599d6e662121f19529f59ffa44cc6177c0835 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 00:58:06 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] [clang] Remove `CXXNewInitializationStyle::Implicit`
This
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78338
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll approved this pull request.
LGTM
PR description is going to become a commit message after merging. Let me know
when it's ready.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77269
___
cfe-commits mailing list
Endilll wrote:
I decided to not include tests, because our testing infrastructure is not ready
to test that Clang doesn't crash without overspecifying the tests using
`-verify` mode.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78898
___
cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78898
Fixes #10518
Fixes #67914
Fixes #78388
Also addresses the second example in #49103
This patch is based on suggestion from @cor3ntin in
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/67914#issuecomment-1896011898
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78793
>From f6a599d6e662121f19529f59ffa44cc6177c0835 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 00:58:06 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] [clang] Remove `CXXNewInitializationStyle::Implicit`
This
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77269
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Endilll wrote:
> I have reviewed the tests for libclang and it appears that there are already
> tests for the rewriter, which are more extensive than the ones I wrote.
> Therefore, I have decided to mirror the tests from libclang in the Python
> binding. Please let me know if this approach is
Endilll wrote:
@cor3ntin During our offline discussion with @AaronBallman, points "we don't
want to read tea leaves" and "CWG can change their opinion" were repeated so
often, that I thought we have consensus on using only official source on
information, i.e. issue list. I also don't see why
https://github.com/Endilll created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78836
This patch prevents tests for unresolved issues to report availability (e.g.
`no` or `18`) on `cxx_dr_status.html` page. But it still checks whether
specified status matches status on the official list,
https://github.com/Endilll closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78103
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78793
This is a follow up to https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71417 , which
aims to resolve concerns brought up there. Namely, this patch replaces
`CXXNewInitializationStyle::Implicit` with a dedicated
https://github.com/Endilll commented:
Changes to DR tests look good.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78720
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Endilll wrote:
@frederick-vs-ja PR description is going to be used as a commit message. You
can edit it. Let me know when it's ready.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68846
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
Endilll wrote:
@mysterymath It's a bit of a shame to admit that I missed the first half of RUN
lines in the previous follow-up. Should be fixed now by
a7588bb9bab43420f1c2642c80489f74af88f855
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77637
___
Author: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: 2024-01-18T22:22:38+03:00
New Revision: a7588bb9bab43420f1c2642c80489f74af88f855
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a7588bb9bab43420f1c2642c80489f74af88f855
DIFF:
Endilll wrote:
@nico I tried to address this in 30da0f5a359ab4a684c5fdf0f4dbed20bae10f99
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77637
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
Author: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: 2024-01-18T20:25:18+03:00
New Revision: 30da0f5a359ab4a684c5fdf0f4dbed20bae10f99
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/30da0f5a359ab4a684c5fdf0f4dbed20bae10f99
DIFF:
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78595
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ struct Bad2 { int a, b; };
} // namespace dr2386
namespace std {
template struct tuple_size;
-template <> struct std::tuple_size {};
Endilll wrote:
Is this warning emitted if we spell it `::std::tuple)size`?
@@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ struct Bad2 { int a, b; };
} // namespace dr2386
namespace std {
template struct tuple_size;
-template <> struct std::tuple_size {};
Endilll wrote:
Is this a really necessary change?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78595
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78103
>From 522c7dff31a6f63995877674f9f4282ae60f7aaa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 19:45:04 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] [clang] Implement CWG1878 "`operator auto` template"
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78103
>From 522c7dff31a6f63995877674f9f4282ae60f7aaa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 19:45:04 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] [clang] Implement CWG1878 "`operator auto` template"
https://github.com/Endilll closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77637
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78103
>From 522c7dff31a6f63995877674f9f4282ae60f7aaa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 19:45:04 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [clang] Implement CWG1878 "`operator auto` template"
@@ -11322,9 +11322,22 @@ Decl
*Sema::ActOnConversionDeclarator(CXXConversionDecl *Conversion) {
<< ClassType << ConvType;
}
- if (FunctionTemplateDecl *ConversionTemplate
-= Conversion->getDescribedFunctionTemplate())
+ if
@@ -686,3 +686,19 @@ auto f(auto x) { // cxx14-error {{'auto' not allowed in
function prototype}}
}
}
+
+struct DeducedTargetTypeOfConversionFunction {
+ operator auto() const { return char(); }
+ operator const auto() const { return float(); }
Endilll
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78103
>From 522c7dff31a6f63995877674f9f4282ae60f7aaa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 19:45:04 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [clang] Implement CWG1878 "`operator auto` template"
Endilll wrote:
> The enum we had in the past described the syntax of the new expression.
Even if it was the case at some point, I'm not sure it held when I created the
PR, which eliminated this kind of nasty mapping, encoding how this enum was
actually used:
```cpp
https://github.com/Endilll approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77753
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Endilll wrote:
> I agree this stretches the definition of NFC commit.
But it was dully reviewed and approved
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71322
I agree with this assessment. I think it really started as regular NFC, but
then me and Aaron realized that we can get rid of some ugly
Endilll wrote:
> I'd qualify this as a regression, by looking at that the commit was supposed
> to be an NFC.
Could you please confirm @Endilll?
I'll leave to @AaronBallman to decide whether this is a functional change, but
I can confirm that patch is working as intended, because there is an
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78200
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78200
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -11792,6 +11792,32 @@ static bool CheckMultiVersionFunction(Sema ,
FunctionDecl *NewFD,
OldDecl, Previous);
}
+static void CheckFunctionDeclarationAttributesUsage(Sema ,
+
https://github.com/Endilll commented:
Looks good overall.
It's good that you wrote your own tests, but it would also be nice to mirror
tests in `clang/unittests/libclang/LibclangTest.cpp` which test the same API.
This way we can identify issues in binding layer itself (when C++ tests pass,
Endilll wrote:
I documented that we don't support unpaired `pop` (tracked in #23065) and
enabling diagnostics that are not enabled via CLI (tracked in #78418).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78095
___
cfe-commits mailing list
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78095
>From 1aca1cd3be8209675b8aa3b79b2d626ad9f3c559 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 14:11:16 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [clang] Remove outdated parts of documentation for
https://github.com/Endilll approved this pull request.
LGTM. I believe we can go ahead with this even if discussion about raising
minimum Python version is not going anywhere. Better test 3.7 and 3.11 than
just 3.11 anyway.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77219
Endilll wrote:
Yeah, I remember I was able to get past the first round of test failures, only
to find another one waiting for me.
Once again I need to sit and debug AST serizalization and deserialization, but
I've been occupied with other stuff since then.
I'm not giving up on this just yet,
@@ -1157,19 +1156,16 @@ existed.
#if foo
#endif foo // warning: extra tokens at end of #endif directive
- #pragma clang diagnostic push
- #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wextra-tokens"
+ #pragma GCC diagnostic push
+ #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wextra-tokens"
Endilll wrote:
> The logic is that this is a pretty big hole in our C++20 support and I don't
> think it's reasonable to try a merge after the deadline for 18. WDYT?
>From our past experience with release managers, they seem quite generous with
>deadlines to merge stuff in, as long as
Endilll wrote:
LGTM, but wair for other reviewers.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71313
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -11322,9 +11322,22 @@ Decl
*Sema::ActOnConversionDeclarator(CXXConversionDecl *Conversion) {
<< ClassType << ConvType;
}
- if (FunctionTemplateDecl *ConversionTemplate
-= Conversion->getDescribedFunctionTemplate())
+ if
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78103
>From 522c7dff31a6f63995877674f9f4282ae60f7aaa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 19:45:04 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang] Implement CWG1878 "`operator auto` template"
https://github.com/Endilll created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78103
C++14 introduced deduced return type for regular functions, but shortly after
[CWG1878](https://wg21.link/cwg1878) was filed and resolved to disallow deduced
return types in conversion function templates. So
https://github.com/Endilll created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78095
GCC has changed over the past decade.
Fixes #51472
>From 1aca1cd3be8209675b8aa3b79b2d626ad9f3c559 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 14:11:16 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] [clang]
https://github.com/Endilll closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77444
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Endilll wrote:
CI fails on formatting in unrelated files, so I'm going to ignore it:
```
t=1704988008448 + echo '*** Checking for trailing whitespace left in Clang
source files ***'
t=1704988008448 *** Checking for trailing whitespace left in Clang source files
***
t=1704988008448 + grep -rnI
https://github.com/Endilll closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78040
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Endilll wrote:
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78060
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Endilll wrote:
> Looking at other places, it looks like init-list stuff is guarded behind
> getLangOpts().CPlusPlus11, so I'll add that check.
Corentin told me offline that check for list initialization that you do might
be sufficient, as it can't pass in 98.
> It looks like this DR is CD5
Endilll wrote:
> Initializer list syntax isn't available in C++98 mode (even as an extension?
> I can't find the option)
I'm not confident enough to properly review your changes, but my line of
thinking is the following: `void()` is available in all language modes, but
you're adding
https://github.com/Endilll commented:
DR testing part looks fine.
I'm worried there are no regular tests. It's also not clear what happens in 98
mode. New code doesn't seem to care about language mode.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78060
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ template struct S {}; // #dr1801-S
S V; // #dr1801-S-i
// cxx98-14-error@-1 {{non-type template argument does not refer to any
declaration}}
// cxx98-14-note@#dr1801-S {{template parameter is declared here}}
-// since-cxx17-error@#dr1801-S-i {{non-type
https://github.com/Endilll commented:
C++ DR test changes look good to me.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78041
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78041
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78040
>From 62620337b64c64535d76c5003f9acd450ab527f7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:32:37 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang] Add test for CWG1350
Test is based on
https://github.com/Endilll approved this pull request.
Looks perfect to me now. Thank you!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77768
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
Endilll wrote:
I was way too deep into P0136R1 [Rewording inheriting constructors (core issue
1941 et al)](https://wg21.link/p0136r1) when I realized Richard has written
tests for all issues covered there long ago. So I decided to carry on and check
whether those tests would benefit from
https://github.com/Endilll created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78040
Test is based on [P0136R1](https://wg21.link/p0136r1) wording instead of
proposed resolution in the issue itself.
This patch also expands related CWG1573 test with an additional test case.
Existing `3.9`
@@ -2871,7 +2871,7 @@ C++ defect report implementation
status
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/472.html;>472
drafting
Casting across protected inheritance
-Not resolved
+No
Endilll wrote:
Current state of things is my fault (I was
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77768
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll requested changes to this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77768
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -132,6 +142,36 @@ namespace dr2126 { // dr2126: 12
#endif
}
+namespace dr2137 { // dr2137: 18
+#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
+ struct Q {
+Q();
+Q(Q&&);
+Q(std::initializer_list) = delete; // since-cxx11-note 2 {{has been
explicitly marked deleted here}}
+ };
+
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77637
>From 545ee4900e48b186e1c9fff93dc62a459ee19754 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:27:53 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/7] [clang] Add test for CWG1807
The test checks that
Endilll wrote:
Following the suggestion from @nikic, I prepared two variants of the same test,
one hard-written, and one using `update_cc_test_checks.py` (with heavy manual
editing afterwards). Hand-written:
```
// CHECK-LABEL: define dso_local void @dr1807::f()
// CHECK:
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77637
>From 545ee4900e48b186e1c9fff93dc62a459ee19754 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:27:53 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/7] [clang] Add test for CWG1807
The test checks that
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77637
>From 545ee4900e48b186e1c9fff93dc62a459ee19754 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:27:53 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] [clang] Add test for CWG1807
The test checks that
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77637
>From 545ee4900e48b186e1c9fff93dc62a459ee19754 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:27:53 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] [clang] Add test for CWG1807
The test checks that
Endilll wrote:
I cleaned up the reviewers. I suggest to use `git merge` next time you need to
bring your PR up to date with `main`. We are not worried about merge commits,
as squash is the only available merge option for PRs.
I also suggest to use "Start review" button when you respond to
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
-// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-linux -std=c++98 %s -O3 -disable-llvm-passes
-pedantic-errors -emit-llvm -o - | FileCheck %s
-// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-linux -std=c++11 %s -O3 -disable-llvm-passes
-pedantic-errors -emit-llvm -o - | FileCheck %s
-//
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
-// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-linux -std=c++98 %s -O3 -disable-llvm-passes
-pedantic-errors -emit-llvm -o - | FileCheck %s
-// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-linux -std=c++11 %s -O3 -disable-llvm-passes
-pedantic-errors -emit-llvm -o - | FileCheck %s
-//
@@ -42,6 +42,28 @@ namespace dr1611 { // dr1611: dup 1658
C c;
}
+namespace dr1626 { // dr1626: no open
+// FIXME: current consensus for CWG2335 is that the examples are well-formed.
Endilll wrote:
We had an offline discussion, and concluded that this test
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77444
>From 1cbf8eec15112cd6871fcfb69425c62f08c8f681 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 14:17:21 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [clang] Add tests for DRs about complete-class context
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77444
>From 1cbf8eec15112cd6871fcfb69425c62f08c8f681 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 14:17:21 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [clang] Add tests for DRs about complete-class context
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77768
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -132,6 +142,36 @@ namespace dr2126 { // dr2126: 12
#endif
}
+namespace dr2137 { // dr2137: 18
+#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
+ struct Q {
+Q();
+Q(Q&&);
+Q(std::initializer_list) = delete; // expected-note 2 {{has been
explicitly marked deleted here}}
+ };
+
+
https://github.com/Endilll requested changes to this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77768
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -349,8 +349,8 @@ namespace dr1684 { // dr1684: 3.6
};
constexpr int f(NonLiteral &) { return 0; }
constexpr int f(NonLiteral) { return 0; }
- // since-cxx11-error@-1 {{constexpr function's 1st parameter type
'NonLiteral' is not a literal type}}
- //
701 - 800 of 1242 matches
Mail list logo
