AaronBallman wrote:
> I'm pretty sure I enabled the warning correctly. @AaronBallman are we good to
> land?
Not quite -- it looks like this change is causing libc++ test failures that
were caught by precommit CI:
```
# |
AaronBallman wrote:
> I'm not seeing any compile time impact from dropping the `DefaultIgnore`s on
> warn_unannotated_fallthrough/warn_unannotated_fallthrough_per_function. So
> either it's free or I'm still doing something wrong.
>
AaronBallman wrote:
> I have not reviewed other pragmas that we do not support, but I think this
> one is a bit special in that it defines functions (code) that can be
> executed, and we are aware of use cases where detecting the error at link
> time is insufficient.
Ooh, maybe I
AaronBallman wrote:
> > > @AaronBallman That's a good point, I didn't account for how defaulted
> > > template arguments aren't printed. Would using `<*>` ~or a more rustic
> > > approach of `<_>`~ be a good alternative?
> >
> >
> > I was thinking about that, but I keep coming around to
AaronBallman wrote:
There is discussion on the Core reflectors about this DR
(https://lists.isocpp.org/core/2024/07/16028.php), so given the amount of
difficulty we've had with this DR so far, I would recommend we hold off on
landing any changes until Core has finished deliberation.
@@ -402,7 +402,7 @@ def warn_unused_function : Warning<"unused function %0">,
InGroup, DefaultIgnore;
def warn_unused_template : Warning<"unused %select{function|variable}0
template %1">,
InGroup, DefaultIgnore;
-def warn_unused_member_function : Warning<"unused member
https://github.com/AaronBallman edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84515
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -76,10 +76,33 @@ struct S {
struct SVS : public VS {
void vm() { }
};
+
+ struct CS {
AaronBallman wrote:
When switching the diagnostic approach, be sure to add test coverage for unused
copy/move constructors, copy/move assignment, and
https://github.com/AaronBallman commented:
Thank you for the diagnostic improvement!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84515
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
AaronBallman wrote:
Blech, thank you for trying! I guess that unless there's some way to hide this
ugliness in the cmake scripts or someone else has better ideas to try, the
`asm` aliasing (on Solaris only) may be our best path forward.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99075
AaronBallman wrote:
Should we prefix this with `__builtin_` as mentioned in
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/98310#issuecomment-2221105713 ?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99473
___
cfe-commits mailing list
https://github.com/AaronBallman closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99308
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
AaronBallman wrote:
> @AaronBallman If no further feedback is needed, could you please proceed with
> the merge? Thanks
Can do! Btw, you should feel free to obtain commit privileges yourself if you'd
like: https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#obtaining-commit-access
https://github.com/AaronBallman approved this pull request.
LGTM! Thank you for the fix!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99308
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
AaronBallman wrote:
> > We have a mixture of both `std::tm` and `::tm` in here, try switching to
> > using `::tm` and see if that helps.
>
> Unfortunately not: I always get the undefined reference to the `std::tm const
> *` version, no matter what I tried.
Drat!
If you dump the symbols from
AaronBallman wrote:
> Allow users to match all record instantiations by using <> as a wildcard.
I think this will change the behavior of existing matchers, consider:
```
template
struct S {
Ty Val;
void Call();
};
int main() {
S<> s;
s.Call(); // Currently matches only this
S
https://github.com/AaronBallman edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/100349
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
AaronBallman wrote:
Aha!
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33767
We have a mixture of both `std::tm` and `::tm` in here, try switching to using
`::tm` and see if that helps.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99075
___
cfe-commits
AaronBallman wrote:
> Confirmed: reverting the change locally restores the builds, although I don't
> yet see why.
The fact that there's a missing symbol suggests the STL on the machine is not
conforming... the symbol that's missing
@@ -6027,6 +6027,33 @@ static bool EvaluateBinaryTypeTrait(Sema ,
TypeTrait BTT, const TypeSourceI
return cast(rhsRecord->getDecl())
->isDerivedFrom(cast(lhsRecord->getDecl()));
}
+ case BTT_IsVirtualBaseOf: {
+const RecordType *BaseRecord = LhsT->getAs();
+
@@ -6027,6 +6027,33 @@ static bool EvaluateBinaryTypeTrait(Sema ,
TypeTrait BTT, const TypeSourceI
return cast(rhsRecord->getDecl())
->isDerivedFrom(cast(lhsRecord->getDecl()));
}
+ case BTT_IsVirtualBaseOf: {
+const RecordType *BaseRecord = LhsT->getAs();
+
@@ -6027,6 +6027,33 @@ static bool EvaluateBinaryTypeTrait(Sema ,
TypeTrait BTT, const TypeSourceI
return cast(rhsRecord->getDecl())
->isDerivedFrom(cast(lhsRecord->getDecl()));
}
+ case BTT_IsVirtualBaseOf: {
+const RecordType *BaseRecord = LhsT->getAs();
+
@@ -6027,6 +6027,33 @@ static bool EvaluateBinaryTypeTrait(Sema ,
TypeTrait BTT, const TypeSourceI
return cast(rhsRecord->getDecl())
->isDerivedFrom(cast(lhsRecord->getDecl()));
}
+ case BTT_IsVirtualBaseOf: {
+const RecordType *BaseRecord = LhsT->getAs();
+
@@ -6027,6 +6027,33 @@ static bool EvaluateBinaryTypeTrait(Sema ,
TypeTrait BTT, const TypeSourceI
return cast(rhsRecord->getDecl())
->isDerivedFrom(cast(lhsRecord->getDecl()));
}
+ case BTT_IsVirtualBaseOf: {
+const RecordType *BaseRecord = LhsT->getAs();
+
AaronBallman wrote:
> > @AaronBallman Just FYI you can also add the Milestone to the PR directly
> > and use the /cherry-pick command right here. This is a bit simpler.
>
> That's good to know! I was going off the documentation at:
>
AaronBallman wrote:
> @AaronBallman Just FYI you can also add the Milestone to the PR directly and
> use the /cherry-pick command right here. This is a bit simpler.
That's good to know! I was going off the documentation at:
https://github.com/AaronBallman commented:
Thank you for these changes! Can you also add a release note to
`clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst` so users know about the new attribute spellings?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99919
___
cfe-commits
https://github.com/AaronBallman edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99919
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -77,15 +77,15 @@
CoroutineHostileRAIICheck::CoroutineHostileRAIICheck(StringRef Name,
void CoroutineHostileRAIICheck::registerMatchers(MatchFinder *Finder) {
// A suspension happens with co_await or co_yield.
- auto ScopedLockable =
https://github.com/AaronBallman approved this pull request.
LGTM!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99579
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
AaronBallman wrote:
> > Does this impact anything user-facing? e.g., should there be an additional
> > test somewhere in clang/test/Sema/ for this change?
>
> I don't think there is any user-visible issue with the one attribute that
> uses this.
Thanks!
> At least how the Parse code is
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+// Trivial check to ensure skip-function-bodies flag is propagated.
+//
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify -skip-function-bodies -pedantic-errors %s
+// expected-no-diagnostics
+
+int f() {
+ // normally this should emit some diags, but we're skipping it!
+ this is
https://github.com/AaronBallman edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/100135
___
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/100135
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
AaronBallman wrote:
I think this should be picked for the Clang 19 branch, so I filed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/100362
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97534
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://github.com/AaronBallman closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97534
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
AaronBallman wrote:
CC @zygoloid for design opinions.
This holding variable is really weird in that it's both not spelled in source
(the user doesn't give it a name) but is spelled in source (only exists because
of a source construct). I think that makes it hard to know whether it should or
https://github.com/AaronBallman approved this pull request.
> The Driver/linker-wrapper-passes.c test failure doesn't look related, that
> test doesn't use stddef.h or anything else. I keep trying to rebase to make
> it go away but it's stubborn.
I looked at the failures as well and I think
https://github.com/AaronBallman approved this pull request.
Thank you, the changes LGTM assuming precommit CI doesn't discover anything.
@cor3ntin are you happy with the changes as well?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99075
___
cfe-commits
https://github.com/AaronBallman approved this pull request.
LGTM!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99763
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
AaronBallman wrote:
> @AaronBallman Should this be added to the 19.x milestone and cherry-picked?
I think it should be
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99727
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
AaronBallman wrote:
> @AaronBallman You are technically right. But it makes more sense to assume
> they don't alias. Luckily, in CSA, we don't need to be perfect, and covering
> the generic scenario usually leads to better user experience.
>
> That said, I'll add the example you suggested.
AaronBallman wrote:
Btw, do you need someone to merge this on your behalf?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97534
___
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/97534
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/AaronBallman commented:
My initial thinking was that this doesn't scale particularly well as there may
be other options we want to also set at the same time to help produce a
reproducer. But after looking through the existing options, I don't really see
others that don't
https://github.com/AaronBallman commented:
> Also fix a bug in the StrictEnumParameters tablegen. If will now correctly
> specify each parameter instead of only the first.
Does this impact anything user-facing? e.g., should there be an additional test
somewhere in clang/test/Sema/ for this
@@ -153,6 +153,40 @@ std::string AttributeCommonInfo::getNormalizedFullName()
const {
normalizeName(getAttrName(), getScopeName(), getSyntax()));
}
+static StringRef getSyntaxName(AttributeCommonInfo::Syntax SyntaxUsed) {
+ switch (SyntaxUsed) {
+ case
https://github.com/AaronBallman edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/3
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
AaronBallman wrote:
Ping @rjmccall @efriedma-quic -- I'd like to see this get into the release so
that the Linux kernel can be built with Clang 19.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97121
___
cfe-commits mailing list
https://github.com/AaronBallman approved this pull request.
Changes LGTM, I've added @MaskRay and @jansvoboda11 in case they can help
answer the OpenCL questions, as it seems @AnastasiaStulova may be unavailable
at the moment.
If we don't hear back from anyone in the next two days, I think
https://github.com/AaronBallman commented:
With additional test coverage, the changes LGTM but I'd appreciate it if
@zygoloid or @ChuanqiXu9 could validate the modules logic.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99727
___
cfe-commits mailing
AaronBallman wrote:
> > These changes should come with a release note so users know about the fix.
>
> Does it need a release note? It was introduced in 19 with #90676, and this
> will fix it in 19 too.
Ah nope, no need for a release note then!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99727
@@ -1721,11 +1721,13 @@ void Preprocessor::ExpandBuiltinMacro(Token ) {
Diag(Tok.getLocation(), diag::warn_pp_date_time);
// MSVC, ICC, GCC, VisualAge C++ extension. The generated string should be
// of the form "Ddd Mmm dd hh::mm::ss ", which is returned by
@@ -3363,6 +3363,7 @@ static void encodeTypeForFunctionPointerAuth(const
ASTContext ,
#include "clang/Basic/RISCVVTypes.def"
llvm_unreachable("not yet implemented");
}
+break;
AaronBallman wrote:
My thinking was: if we add the
https://github.com/AaronBallman commented:
These changes should come with a release note so users know about the fix.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99727
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
@@ -20,19 +20,18 @@
* modules.
*/
#if defined(__MVS__) && __has_include_next()
-#include <__stdarg_header_macro.h>
#undef __need___va_list
#undef __need_va_list
#undef __need_va_arg
#undef __need___va_copy
#undef __need_va_copy
+#include <__stdarg_header_macro.h>
https://github.com/AaronBallman edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99727
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -1721,11 +1721,13 @@ void Preprocessor::ExpandBuiltinMacro(Token ) {
Diag(Tok.getLocation(), diag::warn_pp_date_time);
// MSVC, ICC, GCC, VisualAge C++ extension. The generated string should be
// of the form "Ddd Mmm dd hh::mm::ss ", which is returned by
https://github.com/AaronBallman approved this pull request.
LGTM but please add a release note when landing so users know about the changes.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99340
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
@@ -124,6 +124,24 @@ _Static_assert(__atomic_always_lock_free(4, ), "");
_Static_assert(!__atomic_always_lock_free(8, ), "");
_Static_assert(__atomic_always_lock_free(8, ), "");
+// Validate use with fake pointers constants. This mechanism is used to allow
+// validating
@@ -3363,6 +3363,7 @@ static void encodeTypeForFunctionPointerAuth(const
ASTContext ,
#include "clang/Basic/RISCVVTypes.def"
llvm_unreachable("not yet implemented");
}
+break;
AaronBallman wrote:
It would crash anyway if we fell through because
https://github.com/AaronBallman commented:
The changes LGTM as far as they go, but I've added the driver and options code
owners just to make sure they're also happy.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98713
___
cfe-commits mailing list
@@ -3363,6 +3363,7 @@ static void encodeTypeForFunctionPointerAuth(const
ASTContext ,
#include "clang/Basic/RISCVVTypes.def"
llvm_unreachable("not yet implemented");
}
+break;
AaronBallman wrote:
Does inserting an `llvm_unreachable()` here work
https://github.com/AaronBallman edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97534
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -750,6 +750,8 @@ Bug Fixes in This Version
- Fixed `static_cast` to array of unknown bound. Fixes (#GH62863).
+- Fixed the definition of ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT in stdatomic.h so it can be used in
C++.
AaronBallman wrote:
```suggestion
- Fixed the definition
https://github.com/AaronBallman commented:
Thank you for catching this! Can you also add some tests to
`clang/test/Headers/`? We have some coverage for stdatomic.h in C, but not in
C++ (I'd recommend trying to add a `RUN` line to the .c file with `-x c++` so
it's tested in C++ mode and then
AaronBallman wrote:
CC @zygoloid for a potential additional set of eyes
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98671
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/AaronBallman closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97619
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/AaronBallman edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99672
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -8208,7 +8208,8 @@ void Sema::CheckInfNaNFunction(const CallExpr *Call,
<< 1 << 0 << Call->getSourceRange();
else if ((IsStdFunction(FDecl, "isinf") ||
(IsStdFunction(FDecl, "isfinite") ||
- (FDecl->getIdentifier() && FDecl->getName() ==
https://github.com/AaronBallman commented:
Please update the patch title and description to describe what changes the
patch is making rather than just linking to an issue.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99672
___
cfe-commits mailing list
https://github.com/AaronBallman approved this pull request.
LGTM, thank you for the fix!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99807
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
AaronBallman wrote:
Adding the static analysis code owners for input.
Also, precommit CI found a valid failure:
```
FAIL: Clang :: AST/attr-print-emit.cpp (400 of 20466)
TEST 'Clang :: AST/attr-print-emit.cpp' FAILED
Exit Code: 1
Command Output
AaronBallman wrote:
> > > @alanzhao1 do you think it's reasonable for the workaround to only apply
> > > to code in system headers, or does the NDK get included as regular
> > > headers generally?
> >
> >
> > Having it only apply to system headers should be OK - in our case, chrome
> >
https://github.com/AaronBallman commented:
Thank you for working on this! In general, this is heading in the right
direction. Though I do agree with @shafik that it would be nice to add
additional test coverage for the changes which didn't modify existing test
behavior. Also, we should have a
@@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ constexpr int arb(int n) { // expected-note {{declared
here}}
expected-note {{function parameter 'n' with unknown value
cannot be used in a constant expression}}
}
constexpr long Overflow[(1 << 30) << 2]{}; // expected-warning {{requires 34
https://github.com/AaronBallman edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99579
___
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/97619
___
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/99050
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/AaronBallman closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98642
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
AaronBallman wrote:
> Thanks, LGTM. I like this version.
Thank you for the excellent review, I think we came to a better approach in the
end!
> Did this change also fix any other bugs? Since it looks like we were
> previously not skipping ProcessDeclAttribute for `[[]]` attributes in C23
>
AaronBallman wrote:
Ping @AnastasiaStulova for OpenCL feedback (this PR impacts an OpenCL command
line option).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97342
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
@@ -124,6 +124,24 @@ _Static_assert(__atomic_always_lock_free(4, ), "");
_Static_assert(!__atomic_always_lock_free(8, ), "");
_Static_assert(__atomic_always_lock_free(8, ), "");
+// Validate use with fake pointers constants. This mechanism is used to allow
+// validating
AaronBallman wrote:
> I can try to look at that this week. Either way be ill-formed is much better
> than being incorrect
Thank you @cor3ntin! If it looks like you won't have a solution by Monday
sometime, let's revert the changes so they don't end up on the release branch.
We can
AaronBallman wrote:
> @AaronBallman ping
I've not been able to get back on to this, unfortunately. I'm not certain when
I'll have time, either.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/88546
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
AaronBallman wrote:
> Just to confirm: is this the intentional outcome of this patch?
Before C++20, left shift of -1 does not produce a mathematical result that's
within the range of representable values for the result type, so it's undefined
behavior, and therefore not a core constant
https://github.com/AaronBallman approved this pull request.
LGTM!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99331
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++11 -fsyntax-only -verify %s
+//
+// This test checks that a deprecated attribute on an alias
+// template triggers a warning diagnostic when it is used.
+
+template
+struct NoAttr {
+ void foo() {}
+};
+
+// expected-note@+2
https://github.com/AaronBallman commented:
Thank you for this, the changes should also come with a release note in
clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst so users know about the improvement. Changes
generally LG, but I did have some test suggestions.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97619
https://github.com/AaronBallman edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97619
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/AaronBallman closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96844
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
AaronBallman wrote:
Thank you for spotting this, btw!
Given the proximity to the branch date, I lean towards (1) to give us time to
figure out how to properly do (3) unless someone is starting on (3) Real Soon
Now™. Any disagreement @cor3ntin ?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89713
@@ -9015,11 +9015,20 @@ bool Sema::RequireCompleteTypeImpl(SourceLocation Loc,
QualType T,
if (const MemberPointerType *MPTy = T->getAs()) {
if (!MPTy->getClass()->isDependentType()) {
- if (getLangOpts().CompleteMemberPointers &&
-
https://github.com/AaronBallman commented:
This generally LGTM but I'd love to hear from @rnk or @zmodem as they are quite
knowledgeable about the MS ABI in general.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/91990
___
cfe-commits mailing list
https://github.com/AaronBallman edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/91990
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
AaronBallman wrote:
If I'm following along correctly, both of those `static_assert`s should be
accepted from your first example because `decltype` is an unevaluated context
and the fix would be to change:
```
if (isa(OrigOp.get())) {
```
to instead be:
```
if (isa(OrigOp.get()) &&
@@ -124,6 +124,24 @@ _Static_assert(__atomic_always_lock_free(4, ), "");
_Static_assert(!__atomic_always_lock_free(8, ), "");
_Static_assert(__atomic_always_lock_free(8, ), "");
+// Validate use with fake pointers constants. This mechanism is used to allow
+// validating
https://github.com/AaronBallman commented:
Thanks for this! It should probably have a release note + documentation so
users know this is a supported behavior?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99340
___
cfe-commits mailing list
https://github.com/AaronBallman edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99340
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
-// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c23 %s -E -verify
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c23 %s -E -verify --embed-dir=%S --embed-dir=%S/Inputs
+#embed
AaronBallman wrote:
It feels like this test is unrelated to the test name now; should we move this
into its own
1 - 100 of 5460 matches
Mail list logo
