@@ -131,13 +138,65 @@ def parseScript(test, preamble):
script += preamble
script += scriptInTest
+has_std_module = False
+has_std_compat_module = False
+for module in modules:
+if module == "std":
+has_std_module = True
+elif
Author: HaohaiWen
Date: 2024-01-10T09:24:52+08:00
New Revision: cebd720ab6429bbf2f8d09c37c2965782f23dbab
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/cebd720ab6429bbf2f8d09c37c2965782f23dbab
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/cebd720ab6429bbf2f8d09c37c2965782f23dbab.diff
Author: HaohaiWen
Date: 2024-01-10T09:24:52+08:00
New Revision: cebd720ab6429bbf2f8d09c37c2965782f23dbab
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/cebd720ab6429bbf2f8d09c37c2965782f23dbab
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/cebd720ab6429bbf2f8d09c37c2965782f23dbab.diff
https://github.com/ilovepi updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77516
>From ed9f0c9de1e8f75acdae90ef714323147539d215 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Kirth
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 22:50:19 +
Subject: [PATCH] Add checks for both local and global accesses
Created using spr
https://github.com/mordante updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76246
>From 196cedd36534b02a7c55cf4a1746b34f87ead467 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark de Wever
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 20:43:38 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [libc++][modules] Adds module testing.
This adds a new
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-lld
@llvm/pr-subscribers-lld-elf
Author: Paul Kirth (ilovepi)
Changes
This patch adds support for RISC-V TLSDESC relocations, as described in
https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-elf-psabi-doc/pull/373.
It does not attempt to handle relaxation for
https://github.com/ilovepi created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77516
This patch adds support for RISC-V TLSDESC relocations, as described in
https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-elf-psabi-doc/pull/373.
It does not attempt to handle relaxation for these cases, which will be
@@ -131,13 +138,65 @@ def parseScript(test, preamble):
script += preamble
script += scriptInTest
+has_std_module = False
+has_std_compat_module = False
+for module in modules:
+if module == "std":
+has_std_module = True
+elif
https://github.com/ldionne approved this pull request.
I guess I don't actually need to see this again if the CI passes once this is
rebased on top of the parent changes.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76330
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing
https://github.com/ldionne commented:
This generally looks OK to me, but I'd like to see it once the parent patches
have landed.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76330
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://github.com/ldionne approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76288
___
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/ldionne edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76288
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
@@ -223,6 +283,12 @@ class CxxStandardLibraryTest(lit.formats.FileBasedTest):
allows adding special compilation flags without having to use a
.sh.cpp test, which would be more powerful but perhaps overkill.
+// MODULE: std std.compat
+
+
@@ -317,6 +317,18 @@ def _getAndroidDeviceApi(cfg):
AddSubstitution("%{clang-tidy}", lambda cfg:
_getSuitableClangTidy(cfg))
],
),
+# Whether module support for the platform is available.
+Feature(
+name="has-no-module-support",
@@ -131,13 +138,65 @@ def parseScript(test, preamble):
script += preamble
script += scriptInTest
+has_std_module = False
+has_std_compat_module = False
+for module in modules:
+if module == "std":
+has_std_module = True
+elif
@@ -131,13 +138,65 @@ def parseScript(test, preamble):
script += preamble
script += scriptInTest
+has_std_module = False
+has_std_compat_module = False
+for module in modules:
+if module == "std":
+has_std_module = True
+elif
@@ -223,6 +283,12 @@ class CxxStandardLibraryTest(lit.formats.FileBasedTest):
allows adding special compilation flags without having to use a
.sh.cpp test, which would be more powerful but perhaps overkill.
+// MODULE: std std.compat
@@ -131,13 +138,65 @@ def parseScript(test, preamble):
script += preamble
script += scriptInTest
+has_std_module = False
+has_std_compat_module = False
+for module in modules:
+if module == "std":
+has_std_module = True
+elif
@@ -317,6 +317,18 @@ def _getAndroidDeviceApi(cfg):
AddSubstitution("%{clang-tidy}", lambda cfg:
_getSuitableClangTidy(cfg))
],
),
+# Whether module support for the platform is available.
+Feature(
+name="has-no-module-support",
+
@@ -131,13 +138,65 @@ def parseScript(test, preamble):
script += preamble
script += scriptInTest
+has_std_module = False
+has_std_compat_module = False
+for module in modules:
+if module == "std":
+has_std_module = True
+elif
@@ -131,13 +138,65 @@ def parseScript(test, preamble):
script += preamble
script += scriptInTest
+has_std_module = False
+has_std_compat_module = False
+for module in modules:
+if module == "std":
+has_std_module = True
+elif
https://github.com/ldionne requested changes to this pull request.
This generally looks good to me, but I have some feedback per our live review!
Thanks, this is a great simplification overall.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76246
___
https://github.com/ldionne edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76246
___
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/ChuanqiXu9 closed
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
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
Then this is not needed as far as I understood.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77417
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> @ChuanqiXu9, I managed to push the commit here back to #76774 and we can
> continue the discussion there. Would that be sufficient?
The intention of split the patch is to ease the reviewing. If you are glad to
do that, yes, it will be pretty good : )
26 matches
Mail list logo