Re: [PATCH] D20687: Update hasDynamicExceptionSpec to use functionType instead of functionDecl.

2016-06-04 Thread don hinton via cfe-commits
hintonda added a comment. Ping... http://reviews.llvm.org/D20687 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Re: r271544 - [docs] Add a limitations section to SourceBasedCodeCoverage.rst

2016-06-04 Thread Sean Silva via cfe-commits
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Vedant Kumar via cfe-commits < cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Author: vedantk > Date: Thu Jun 2 12:19:45 2016 > New Revision: 271544 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=271544=rev > Log: > [docs] Add a limitations section to

r271818 - check-clang: LTO, aka libLTO.so, was redundant here, since llvm-lto depends on it.

2016-06-04 Thread NAKAMURA Takumi via cfe-commits
Author: chapuni Date: Sat Jun 4 19:12:59 2016 New Revision: 271818 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=271818=rev Log: check-clang: LTO, aka libLTO.so, was redundant here, since llvm-lto depends on it. Modified: cfe/trunk/test/CMakeLists.txt Modified:

r271801 - Add PIE magic for NetBSD. Add tests for the correct flags for

2016-06-04 Thread Joerg Sonnenberger via cfe-commits
Author: joerg Date: Sat Jun 4 15:03:26 2016 New Revision: 271801 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=271801=rev Log: Add PIE magic for NetBSD. Add tests for the correct flags for non-shared, PIE and shared output mode. Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp

r271795 - [AVX512] Remove 512-bit andnot tests from the avx512vl test file.

2016-06-04 Thread Craig Topper via cfe-commits
Author: ctopper Date: Sat Jun 4 11:37:38 2016 New Revision: 271795 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=271795=rev Log: [AVX512] Remove 512-bit andnot tests from the avx512vl test file. Modified: cfe/trunk/test/CodeGen/avx512vl-builtins.c Modified:

[libcxx] r271794 - Don't call memmove when there's nothing to move. Fixes PR#27978.

2016-06-04 Thread Marshall Clow via cfe-commits
Author: marshall Date: Sat Jun 4 11:16:59 2016 New Revision: 271794 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=271794=rev Log: Don't call memmove when there's nothing to move. Fixes PR#27978. Modified: libcxx/trunk/include/fstream Modified: libcxx/trunk/include/fstream URL:

Re: [PATCH] D20856: [clang-tidy] readability-identifier-naming - Support for Type Aliases

2016-06-04 Thread James Reynolds via cfe-commits
JamesReynolds added a comment. Great, and happy to help. I'm working on another couple that I should hopefully complete sometime next week. If you could commit this for me that would be great, thank you! http://reviews.llvm.org/D20856 ___

[PATCH] D20997: [Coverage] Fix an assertion failure if the definition of an unused function spans multiple files.

2016-06-04 Thread Igor Kudrin via cfe-commits
ikudrin created this revision. ikudrin added reviewers: vsk, bogner, davidxl. ikudrin added a subscriber: cfe-commits. ikudrin set the repository for this revision to rL LLVM. We had an assertion failure if, for example, the definition of an unused inline function starts in one macro and ends in

Re: [PATCH] D20964: [clang-tidy] Add modernize-use-emplace

2016-06-04 Thread Piotr Padlewski via cfe-commits
Prazek added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20964#448551, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote: > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20964#448525, @Prazek wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20964#448455, @Eugene.Zelenko wrote: > > > > > I think will be good idea to try this check with LLVM STL too. > >

Re: [PATCH] D18821: Add bugprone-bool-to-integer-conversion

2016-06-04 Thread Piotr Padlewski via cfe-commits
Prazek added inline comments. Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone-bool-to-integer-conversion.rst:37 @@ +36,3 @@ + +It turns out that the common bug is to have function returning only bools but having int as return type. +If check finds case like this then it function

Re: [PATCH] D20857: [clang-tidy] Add modernize-explicit-operator-bool check.

2016-06-04 Thread Murray Cumming via cfe-commits
murrayc added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20857#449080, @alexfh wrote: > Looks like a useful check to have. I'm not sure though, that it has anything > to do with "modernize". I'd suggest adding a new "bugprone" module (should be > added by http://reviews.llvm.org/D18821, hopefully