joker-eph wrote:
You're right, it's visible on the link I posted, the build was already broken!
Somehow I fat-fingered and didn't hit the first red build but the third one!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
mizvekov wrote:
I just double checked, the issue is present on main before this PR was merged,
it's completely unrelated.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
joker-eph wrote:
Great, thanks for the quick fix!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
mizvekov wrote:
I just pushed a fix.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
mizvekov wrote:
Yep, I confirm the behavior happens if I add `-triple x86_64-windows-msvc` to
RUN line.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
mizvekov wrote:
Weirdly enough the test passes on my machine, latest MacOS.
Maybe the test is not constrained on target, and this is causing differences
between machines?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
mizvekov wrote:
The quick fix would be to change the expectations of the test, I can do it for
you.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
joker-eph wrote:
So are we reverting here or do you have quick fix available?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
mizvekov wrote:
That test was merged after the last time pre-commit CI was run on this MR.
The change looks like a consequence of my refactoring, we now preserve the type
sugar from the injected arguments.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
joker-eph wrote:
Seems like a bot is broken:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/271/builds/7701 ; can you check?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://github.com/mizvekov closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/zygoloid commented:
I think we should go ahead with this. The behavior here is subtle but I think
it does make sense, and we're in the process of proposing this change to WG21.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
https://github.com/erichkeane approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/cor3ntin approved this pull request.
LGTM but gives @zygoloid @erichkeane a few days to review
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
Endilll wrote:
> Despite CWG2398 not being voted in yet, the status in
>
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/e3f42b02a4129947ca2dd820bfb63ffed83027b7/clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html#L14195-L14200
>
> should be updated.
The only way to update it is to add a test to `clang/test/CXX/drs`.
https://github.com/mizvekov edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/mizvekov edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/mizvekov edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/mizvekov updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
>From 39e0af93163068f8de190649eccf91fda84178b6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matheus Izvekov
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 22:29:45 -0300
Subject: [PATCH] [clang] Implement provisional wording for CWG2398 regarding
https://github.com/mizvekov edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/mizvekov updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
>From c4b72afa655c0e35005dca8aea18e651189f8938 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matheus Izvekov
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 22:29:45 -0300
Subject: [PATCH] [clang] Implement provisional wording for CWG2398 regarding
@@ -2583,8 +2584,11 @@ DeduceTemplateArguments(Sema , TemplateParameterList
*TemplateParams,
return TemplateDeductionResult::MiscellaneousDeductionFailure;
// Perform deduction for this Pi/Ai pair.
- if (auto Result = DeduceTemplateArguments(S,
@@ -2552,7 +2553,7 @@ DeduceTemplateArguments(Sema , TemplateParameterList
*TemplateParams,
ArrayRef As,
TemplateDeductionInfo ,
SmallVectorImpl ,
-bool NumberOfArgumentsMustMatch)
https://github.com/mizvekov edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/mizvekov edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Endilll wrote:
> Sounds like should perhaps note that we are implementing our own resolution,
> until there's an update to the cwg issue that can be referred to?
Our tooling is not ready for describing own own resolutions, unfortunately.
Ideally if we have a
mizvekov wrote:
> Sounds like should perhaps note that we are implementing our own resolution,
> until there's an update to the cwg issue that can be referred to?
That could be. Is there another similar issue we could use as a reference on
the format for
mizvekov wrote:
It would not be splitting though, it would be wholesale duplication in that
case.
This file is the only part of the suite still testing the old non-conformant
mode, and I fail to see a test case we wouldn't be wanting to test on both.
h-vetinari wrote:
> Note we are not implementing the solution Jason posted on the core mailing
> list, neither on the previous patch, as we have a better solution than
> current GCC on this, nor on this MR, as GCC implements no such workaround and
> still
Endilll wrote:
> Also, this needs to test a non-conforming mode until we finally remove the
> corresponding flag, and that is against the rules for the DR suite.
You should be able to split conforming part of the test into DR test, though.
mizvekov wrote:
Note we are not implementing the solution Jason posted on the core mailing
list, neither on the previous patch, as we have a better solution than current
GCC on this, nor on this MR, as GCC implements no such workaround and still
fails this
Endilll wrote:
This file is not going to be picked up by the `make_cxx_dr_status`, because
it's not in `clang/test/CXX/drs`. If we're implementing what Jason Merill
speaks of (_In deduction we can determine that P is more specialized than B,
then substitute
https://github.com/mizvekov edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
mizvekov wrote:
I had some discussion about that with @Endilll on the previous MR regarding
this core issue: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89807
Since there is no posting at all in core about any possible solutions, I wanted
to get feedback from
h-vetinari wrote:
AFAIU, for this to be picked up by
[make_cxx_dr_status](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/www/make_cxx_dr_status)
correctly, this file should have a comment near the top like:
```
// cwg2398: 19 drafting 2016-12-03
```
and
https://github.com/h-vetinari commented:
Despite CWG2398 not being voted in yet, the status in
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/e3f42b02a4129947ca2dd820bfb63ffed83027b7/clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html#L14195-L14200
should be updated.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
https://github.com/h-vetinari edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll commented:
`Sema.h` changes look good to me.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Matheus Izvekov (mizvekov)
Changes
This solves some ambuguity introduced in P0522 regarding how template template
parameters are partially ordered, and should reduce the negative impact of
enabling `-frelaxed-template-template-args` by
https://github.com/mizvekov created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90820
This solves some ambuguity introduced in P0522 regarding how template template
parameters are partially ordered, and should reduce the negative impact of
enabling `-frelaxed-template-template-args` by default.
40 matches
Mail list logo
