fahadnayyar wrote:
Filed this issue: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/86997
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81298
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -431,23 +441,34 @@ class InstrProfSymtab {
using AddrHashMap = std::vector>;
private:
+ using AddrIntervalMap =
+ IntervalMap>;
StringRef Data;
uint64_t Address = 0;
- // Unique name strings.
+ // Unique name strings. Used to ensure entries in MD5NameMap (a
@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
+// REQUIRES: lld-available
+
+// RUN: rm -rf %t && split-file %s %t && cd %t
+//
+// RUN: %clangxx_pgogen -fuse-ld=lld -O2 -g -fprofile-generate=. -mllvm
-enable-vtable-value-profiling test.cpp -o test
+// RUN: env LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=test.profraw ./test
@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
+// REQUIRES: lld-available
+
+// RUN: rm -rf %t && split-file %s %t && cd %t
+//
+// RUN: %clangxx_pgogen -fuse-ld=lld -O2 -g -fprofile-generate=. -mllvm
-enable-vtable-value-profiling test.cpp -o test
+// RUN: env LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=test.profraw ./test
+
+//
@@ -1362,8 +1372,8 @@ remapSamples(const sampleprof::FunctionSamples ,
BodySample.second.getSamples());
for (const auto : BodySample.second.getCallTargets()) {
Result.addCalledTargetSamples(BodySample.first.LineOffset,
-
https://github.com/snehasish approved this pull request.
lgtm
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66825
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -676,24 +722,66 @@ TEST_P(InstrProfReaderWriterTest, icall_data_read_write) {
Expected R = Reader->getInstrProfRecord("caller", 0x1234);
ASSERT_THAT_ERROR(R.takeError(), Succeeded());
+
+ // Test the number of instrumented indirect call sites and the number of
+ //
@@ -676,24 +722,66 @@ TEST_P(InstrProfReaderWriterTest, icall_data_read_write) {
Expected R = Reader->getInstrProfRecord("caller", 0x1234);
ASSERT_THAT_ERROR(R.takeError(), Succeeded());
+
+ // Test the number of instrumented indirect call sites and the number of
+ //
@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
+// REQUIRES: lld-available
+
+// RUN: rm -rf %t && split-file %s %t && cd %t
+//
+// RUN: %clangxx_pgogen -fuse-ld=lld -O2 -g -fprofile-generate=. -mllvm
-enable-vtable-value-profiling test.cpp -o test
+// RUN: env LLVM_PROFILE_FILE=test.profraw ./test
+
+//
@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
+// REQUIRES: lld-available
+
+// RUN: rm -rf %t && split-file %s %t && cd %t
snehasish wrote:
I think you can skip this RUN line and just use `%s` as the input file in the
line pgogen invocation below.
https://github.com/snehasish edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66825
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
ian-twilightcoder wrote:
> I still don't understand how that works in case you do end up including a
> header from the platform that (re)defines `unreachable`, for example.
>
> The same problem also applies today to e.g. `size_t` and anything else
> provided by the Clang builtin headers. If a
https://github.com/zahiraam edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86741
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
zahiraam wrote:
> > Now I wonder if the fix should be with the (void) or without. Have you
> > tried it locally to see if you get the same build error?
>
> Yes, I just tried your patch and confirmed that the unit test passes without
> a problem.
>
> No, you shouldn't keep `(void)` there.
fahadnayyar wrote:
@AaronBallman precisely!
`DSC` now is : `DSC_template_arg`
`DSC` in earlier clang was : `DSC_type_specifier`
@AMP999 do you have thoughts about how we can fix this issue?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81298
___
ldionne wrote:
Thanks for the explanation, @AaronBallman . I think I am generally deeply
confused about what should be provided by the compiler and what should be
provided by the C Standard Library on any given platform. From your reply, it
looks like there's no clear rule and Clang basically
kazutakahirata wrote:
> Now I wonder if the fix should be with the (void) or without. Have you tried
> it locally to see if you get the same build error?
Yes, I just tried your patch and confirmed that the unit test passes without a
problem.
No, you shouldn't keep `(void)` there. It's there
https://github.com/benlangmuir approved this pull request.
Thanks for explaining; LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86216
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/ributzka approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86980
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
bogner wrote:
Thanks for working on this, but I think that what this shows is that the
complexity of adding this elementwise alias builtin isn't quite justified by
the utility. It's certainly convenient to be able to specify the builtins this
way, but validation is a lot more complicated and
https://github.com/bob80905 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85340
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Joshua Batista
Date: 2024-03-28T12:13:48-07:00
New Revision: 6f10dccbab4630604f8a6073ac4b9fb61bf8fc9e
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/6f10dccbab4630604f8a6073ac4b9fb61bf8fc9e
DIFF:
https://github.com/cooperp approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86980
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
efriedma-quic wrote:
If you think the coroutine codegen thing is something that needs to be
addressed in a followup, can you open a bug for it?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86923
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://github.com/efriedma-quic approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86835
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/zahiraam updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86741
>From 8d113344d0742f80bc967019131c9111a0db78ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Zahira Ammarguellat
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:21:16 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Fix buildbot
https://github.com/damyanp approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85340
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
bogner wrote:
I think it would be helpful to add a section between the usage part and the
grammar that discusses where and why in the compiler we need access to the
parsed root signature (ie, in Sema for diagnostics, in the backend to verify
resource usage matches, and also in the backend to
Author: Aaron Ballman
Date: 2024-03-28T14:52:43-04:00
New Revision: c2f3a11dbe1a6bc2fc46b35c3fb4398e1d6a90c4
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/c2f3a11dbe1a6bc2fc46b35c3fb4398e1d6a90c4
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/c2f3a11dbe1a6bc2fc46b35c3fb4398e1d6a90c4.diff
dwblaikie wrote:
> > > > > @iains @dwblaikie Understood. And I thought the major problem is that
> > > > > there are a lot flags from clang modules. And it is indeed confusing.
> > > > > But given we have to introduce new flags in this case, probably we
> > > > > can only try to make it more
zahiraam wrote:
> > > I thought the issue was fixed with the (void) addition! If not, I will
> > > merge this PR immediately.
> >
> >
> > Sorry, I misunderstood. The `void` fix
> > ([577e0ef](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/577e0ef94fb0b4ba9f97a6f58a1961f7ba247d21))
> > fixes
https://github.com/AaronBallman closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86985
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Aaron Ballman
Date: 2024-03-28T14:39:58-04:00
New Revision: 8ee5a3fd1cf54cbbcb9c66d8a99976cfdc4fc56f
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/8ee5a3fd1cf54cbbcb9c66d8a99976cfdc4fc56f
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/8ee5a3fd1cf54cbbcb9c66d8a99976cfdc4fc56f.diff
AaronBallman wrote:
I put this up for review because I wanted the extra testing on Precommit CI for
Linux (I had locally verified the test on Windows myself). Going to merge
without review because this is just adding test coverage.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86985
https://github.com/zahiraam updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86741
>From 8d113344d0742f80bc967019131c9111a0db78ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Zahira Ammarguellat
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 14:21:16 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Fix buildbot
efriedma-quic wrote:
Is this patch ready to merge?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/72197
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -761,6 +761,13 @@ void ASTDeclWriter::VisitFunctionDecl(FunctionDecl *D) {
}
}
+ // FIXME: Hack: We're out of bits in FunctionDeclBits, so always
+ // add this even though it's 0 in the vast majority of cases. We
+ // might really want to consider storing this in
https://github.com/zahiraam edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86741
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
zahiraam wrote:
> > I thought the issue was fixed with the (void) addition! If not, I will
> > merge this PR immediately.
>
> Sorry, I misunderstood. The `void` fix
> ([577e0ef](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/577e0ef94fb0b4ba9f97a6f58a1961f7ba247d21))
> fixes the build error.
>
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Aaron Ballman (AaronBallman)
Changes
This adds test coverage for implementation limits that were defined in WG14
N590. The original content of that paper is not available, so this actually
tests against the limits as of C23.
---
Full
kazutakahirata wrote:
> I thought the issue was fixed with the (void) addition! If not, I will merge
> this PR immediately.
Sorry, I misunderstood. The `void` fix
(https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/577e0ef94fb0b4ba9f97a6f58a1961f7ba247d21)
fixes the build error.
Meanwhile, I am
jansvoboda11 wrote:
By default, `SourceLocation` is 32 bits. One bit is used to distinguish macro
expansions. Looking at libc++'s module map, it contains 999 top-level modules
at this moment. That's 10 bits just to be able to import the (entire) standard
library. That leaves 21 bits,
ameerj wrote:
@HazardyKnusperkeks Thanks for the review!
I don't have repo permissions so I can't run all CI workflows or merge the PR.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84988
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
@@ -0,0 +1,618 @@
+; RUN: llc -mtriple=amdgcn -mcpu=gfx900 -mattr=+precise-memory < %s |
FileCheck %s -check-prefixes=GFX9
+; RUN: llc -mtriple=amdgcn -mcpu=gfx90a -mattr=+precise-memory < %s |
FileCheck %s -check-prefixes=GFX90A
+; RUN: llc -mtriple=amdgcn -mcpu=gfx1010
https://github.com/arsenm edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79236
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -2326,6 +2326,20 @@ bool
SIInsertWaitcnts::insertWaitcntInBlock(MachineFunction ,
}
#endif
+if (ST->isPreciseMemoryEnabled() && Inst.mayLoadOrStore()) {
+ AMDGPU::Waitcnt Wait;
+ if (ST->hasExtendedWaitCounts())
+Wait = AMDGPU::Waitcnt(0, 0, 0,
zahiraam wrote:
> Would you mind merging this PR into the LLVM source tree if nothing is
> blocking you?
>
> If something is blocking you, I am happy to revert your original patch on
> your behalf (along with the `(void)` fix).
I thought the issue was fixed with the (void) addition! If not,
@@ -12107,6 +12090,35 @@ bool Sema::CheckFunctionDeclaration(Scope *S,
FunctionDecl *NewFD,
CheckConstPureAttributesUsage(*this, NewFD);
+ // C++23 [dcl.spec.auto.general]p12:
+ // Return type deduction for a templated function with a placeholder in its
+ //
@@ -345,6 +345,10 @@ Bug Fixes in This Version
- Fixes an assertion failure on invalid code when trying to define member
functions in lambdas.
+- Clang now allows for member function templates of class templates declared
with a deduced return type
+ to be explicitly
https://github.com/Sirraide requested changes to this pull request.
LGTM after looking at this for a while, except for some minor comments.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86817
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://github.com/Sirraide edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86817
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
minglotus-6 wrote:
> I think we should resort to scripts and profraw in LLVM if we don't have
> support for textual format. This is the case for memprof for example.
Got it. I updated the test cases. Now compiler-rt test provides raw-related
test coverage, and IR test provides test coverage
https://github.com/AtariDreams closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86967
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/AtariDreams reopened
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86967
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/AtariDreams closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86967
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/hokein closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86943
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Haojian Wu
Date: 2024-03-28T18:58:52+01:00
New Revision: 599027857e1007ff402094a3a550b4832f3f5146
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/599027857e1007ff402094a3a550b4832f3f5146
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/599027857e1007ff402094a3a550b4832f3f5146.diff
@@ -1356,6 +1356,8 @@ NormalizedConstraint::fromConstraintExpr(Sema ,
NamedDecl *D, const Expr *E) {
S, CSE->getExprLoc(),
Sema::InstantiatingTemplate::ConstraintNormalization{}, D,
CSE->getSourceRange());
+ if (Inst.isInvalid())
+
https://github.com/hokein updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86943
>From cb863750a7c57e76bbb8d63cc88975f5adaa65aa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Haojian Wu
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 13:23:51 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang] Add invalid check in
https://github.com/farzonl closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86932
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Andrii Levitskiy
Date: 2024-03-28T13:34:31-04:00
New Revision: 6dceea3cb273c8a6ab4c7784980057b3c2793d70
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/6dceea3cb273c8a6ab4c7784980057b3c2793d70
DIFF:
dwblaikie wrote:
Yep, the original code still crashes with this PR applied, and the reduced test
case comes down to something identical to the code shown in
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86401#issuecomment-2024151742 with a
stack trace that looks the same as the one caused by the
frasercrmck wrote:
> The build here seems to be trying to define clc as a language, which then
> results in needing to rely on language support magic like this. I think it
> would be better if this did what rocm-device-libs does and treat these as
> custom targets. I don't think it's
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-driver
Author: Cyndy Ishida (cyndyishida)
Changes
`-reexport*` is the newer spelling for `-sub-library` which is already
supported by the clang driver when invoking ld.
Support the new spellings when passed by the user.
https://github.com/cyndyishida created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86980
`-reexport*` is the newer spelling for `-sub-library` which is already
supported by the clang driver when invoking ld.
Support the new spellings when passed by the user. This also helps simplify
https://github.com/balazske closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83858
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Balázs Kéri
Date: 2024-03-28T18:04:35+01:00
New Revision: 8dcff10e9b7405138af768ec89d0718e048ca340
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/8dcff10e9b7405138af768ec89d0718e048ca340
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/8dcff10e9b7405138af768ec89d0718e048ca340.diff
https://github.com/arsenm approved this pull request.
In the context of what the build is already doing, this should be fine
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86965
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
arsenm wrote:
The build here seems to be trying to define clc as a language, which then
results in needing to rely on language support magic like this. I think it
would be better if this did what rocm-device-libs does and treat these as
custom targets. I don't think it's particularly helpful
@@ -770,6 +770,18 @@ bool TargetInfo::validateOutputConstraint(ConstraintInfo
) const {
case 'E':
case 'F':
break; // Pass them.
+case '{': {
jyknight wrote:
It's unclear to me whether this uses the same register parsing logic as the
@@ -1760,6 +1760,50 @@ references can be used instead of numeric references.
return -1;
}
+Hard Register Operands for ASM Constraints
+==
+
+Clang supports the ability to specify specific hardware registers in inline
+assembly
jyknight wrote:
Thanks for reviving the change!
I'm definitely in favor of this, but since it adds no new functionality (only
better usability), the value proposition is significantly lessened (IMO, to the
point where it may not be be worthwhile to do) if it gets implemented ONLY in
clang.
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-tidy
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-tools-extra
Author: Edwin Vane (revane)
Changes
Until now, they were just ignored by RenamerClangTidyCheck.
---
Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86976.diff
2 Files Affected:
- (modified)
https://github.com/revane created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86976
Until now, they were just ignored by RenamerClangTidyCheck.
>From 85539210edf644259bb0dbb1d090e092709a1a1d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Edwin Vane
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 09:24:34 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Support
@@ -1238,12 +1238,12 @@ class StoreSiteFinder final : public
TrackingBugReporterVisitor {
///changes to its value in a nested stackframe could be pruned, and
///this visitor can prevent that without polluting the bugpath too
///much.
-
https://github.com/steakhal approved this pull request.
The simpler the better.
Thanks.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86953
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/steakhal edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86953
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
kazutakahirata wrote:
Would you mind merging this PR into the LLVM source tree if nothing is blocking
you?
If something is blocking you, I am happy to revert your original patch on your
behalf (along with the `(void)` fix).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86741
https://github.com/Keenuts closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80680
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Nathan Gauër
Date: 2024-03-28T17:18:05+01:00
New Revision: 0f61051f541a5b8cfce25c84262dfdbadb9ca688
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/0f61051f541a5b8cfce25c84262dfdbadb9ca688
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/0f61051f541a5b8cfce25c84262dfdbadb9ca688.diff
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: AtariDreams (AtariDreams)
Changes
---
Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86967.diff
1 Files Affected:
- (modified) clang/lib/CodeGen/CGBuiltin.cpp (+3-5)
``diff
diff --git a/clang/lib/CodeGen/CGBuiltin.cpp
https://github.com/AtariDreams created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86967
None
>From 74c168b790f8daabf68426ce3fdffee0348f126b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Rose
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 12:12:57 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] [CGBuiltin] Use freeze instruction to create an undef value
https://github.com/frasercrmck created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86965
This commit fixes the problem of missing build dependencies between libclc
source files and their various includes (namely headers and .inc files).
We would like to do this with compiler-generated
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Thomas Köppe (tkoeppe)
Changes
Found with -Wundefined-func-template.
---
Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86964.diff
1 Files Affected:
- (modified) clang/lib/AST/Interp/ByteCodeStmtGen.h (+1)
``diff
diff
tkoeppe wrote:
I don't have commit access and would welcome if someone else could merge this.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86964
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://github.com/tkoeppe created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86964
Found with -Wundefined-func-template.
From 8576f816ce9873cf4212134d7cb9c985c4e04a53 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Thomas=20K=C3=B6ppe?=
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:44:40 +
Subject: [PATCH] Add
https://github.com/tltao updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85846
>From 71c2e7959cff33f9cd6fc98a99b7261d535183af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tony Tao
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 14:32:48 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Revisiting the hard register constraint PR on
phabricator:
https://github.com/cyndyishida updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86852
>From 9ddf01a4f28df19914aa393b1ac518410693af5b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Cyndy Ishida
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 14:33:15 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [InstallAPI] Add support for parsing dSYMs
InstallAPI
https://github.com/frasercrmck closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86945
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Fraser Cormack
Date: 2024-03-28T15:11:30Z
New Revision: e251f56a4d808340765112dd78edc6e6619dd05b
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/e251f56a4d808340765112dd78edc6e6619dd05b
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/e251f56a4d808340765112dd78edc6e6619dd05b.diff
Author: martinboehme
Date: 2024-03-28T16:05:11+01:00
New Revision: ae280281ce9f14f413ced0e44158a6fd41a98243
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/ae280281ce9f14f413ced0e44158a6fd41a98243
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/ae280281ce9f14f413ced0e44158a6fd41a98243.diff
https://github.com/martinboehme closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86942
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/sdkrystian updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86817
>From 468e3d9414a797ea73411a779343dee351e09e42 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Krystian Stasiowski
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 11:23:19 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [Clang][Sema] Fix explicit specializations of
TIFitis wrote:
> I don't remember exactly the test (added them more than 5 years ago), but
> both UDR and non-trivial constructors should be supported. I just remember
> that there were some limitations for UDR for NVPTX, like trivial UDR
> operations to use NVPTX fast builtins.
As long we
github-actions[bot] wrote:
:warning: C/C++ code formatter, clang-format found issues in your code.
:warning:
You can test this locally with the following command:
``bash
git-clang-format --diff 49b520856967c2354339d3c2a05fcf1d2d637f30
107cf4fdda2680a3de4fd0cea6e9fc1eaaf5f8c7 --
https://github.com/yronglin created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86960
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/85613.
In https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76361, we've not implement the
lifetime extensions for the temporaries which in `CXXDefaultInitExpr`. As
https://github.com/python3kgae approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86932
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
farzonl wrote:
> thanks for review! can you merge that?
Our process is two reviewers. I will after one more person takes a look.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86932
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
aabysswalker wrote:
thanks for review! can you merge that?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86932
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/AaronBallman approved this pull request.
LGTM!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/74440
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
101 - 200 of 306 matches
Mail list logo
