shafik wrote:
The clang-format error is a false positive.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70150
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
shafik wrote:
The clang-format error is a false positive.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70150
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/shafik updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70150
>From 1e7ec004102349a67519966bb7111838668ab2b4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Shafik Yaghmour
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:21:30 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [Clang] Ensure zero-init is not overridden when intializing a
https://github.com/shafik created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70150
During constant evaluation when value-initializing a class if the base class
was default-initialized it would undue the previously zero-initialized class
members. This fixes the way we handle default
@@ -5536,10 +5538,24 @@ RValue CodeGenFunction::EmitCall(QualType CalleeType,
const CGCallee
break;
}
}
+
+if (const auto *MD =
+dyn_cast_if_present(OCE->getCalleeDecl());
+MD && MD->isStatic())
+ StaticOperator = true;
}
-
@@ -7806,7 +7806,8 @@ class ExprEvaluatorBase
// Overloaded operator calls to member functions are represented as
normal
// calls with '*this' as the first argument.
const CXXMethodDecl *MD = dyn_cast(FD);
- if (MD &&
@@ -5536,10 +5538,24 @@ RValue CodeGenFunction::EmitCall(QualType CalleeType,
const CGCallee
break;
}
}
+
+if (const auto *MD =
+dyn_cast_if_present(OCE->getCalleeDecl());
+MD && MD->isStatic())
+ StaticOperator = true;
}
-
@@ -3605,8 +3605,11 @@ static QualType
GetDeclSpecTypeForDeclarator(TypeProcessingState ,
Info = ();
} else {
// In C++14, generic lambdas allow 'auto' in their parameters.
-if (!SemaRef.getLangOpts().CPlusPlus14 || !Auto ||
-
shafik wrote:
> FWIW, I spoke offline with the original author of the PR and he said that
> he's fine with me picking up the changes and carrying the review forward.
>
> Because I don't know of any better way to commandeer a patch in GitHub, I'll
> probably grab the changes, get them into my
https://github.com/shafik approved this pull request.
LGTM, just fill out the description with some more details so folks reading git
log will have more context,
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67147
___
cfe-commits mailing list
@@ -1629,6 +1629,8 @@ def IFunc : Attr, TargetSpecificAttr {
def Restrict : InheritableAttr {
let Spellings = [Declspec<"restrict">, GCC<"malloc">];
+ let Args = [IdentifierArgument<"Deallocator", /*opt*/ 1>,
+ ParamIdxArgument<"DeallocatorPtrArgIndex",
@@ -1629,6 +1629,8 @@ def IFunc : Attr, TargetSpecificAttr {
def Restrict : InheritableAttr {
let Spellings = [Declspec<"restrict">, GCC<"malloc">];
+ let Args = [IdentifierArgument<"Deallocator", /*opt*/ 1>,
+ ParamIdxArgument<"DeallocatorPtrArgIndex",
https://github.com/shafik commented:
Just a nit
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68059
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/shafik edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68059
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/shafik commented:
Why not wrap this into `-Wconversion` on clang as well?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68276
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
shafik wrote:
I would hate to lose the non-diagram part of this documentation. Do the
criticism mainly apply to the diagrams and the text documentation is ok for
most?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66436
___
cfe-commits mailing list
shafik wrote:
I think you should also add `[ASTMatcher]` to the subject after `[Clang]` at
least that is what past PRs seem to do.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67939
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://github.com/shafik approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68090
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -15090,8 +15093,9 @@ static void CheckImplicitConversion(Sema , Expr *E,
QualType T,
if (SourceBT && TargetBT && SourceBT->isIntegerType() &&
TargetBT->isFloatingType() && !IsListInit) {
// Determine the number of precision bits in the source integer type.
-
@@ -14143,8 +14145,9 @@ static void AnalyzeComparison(Sema , BinaryOperator
*E) {
}
// Otherwise, calculate the effective range of the signed operand.
- IntRange signedRange = GetExprRange(
- S.Context, signedOperand, S.isConstantEvaluated(), /*Approximate*/ true);
https://github.com/shafik approved this pull request.
LGTM after fixing nits.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66222
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/shafik edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66222
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -4628,6 +4628,12 @@ ASTFileSignature ASTWriter::WriteAST(Sema ,
StringRef OutputFile,
WritingAST = true;
ASTHasCompilerErrors = hasErrors;
+ bool trueHasErrors =
SemaRef.PP.getDiagnostics().hasUncompilableErrorOccurred();
shafik wrote:
So this
https://github.com/shafik edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68127
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/shafik commented:
The fix does not look correct but perhaps someone else will have more insight.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68127
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
@@ -85,3 +85,13 @@ int main() {
}
+
+namespace deduceTemplatedConstructor{
shafik wrote:
I apologize for asking you to do additional work here but can you add the rest
of the examples from [over.match.best.general
https://github.com/shafik approved this pull request.
Thank you for the follow-up work.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66487
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
@@ -8367,7 +8367,13 @@ bool LValueExprEvaluator::VisitVarDecl(const Expr *E,
const VarDecl *VD) {
if (auto *FD = Info.CurrentCall->LambdaCaptureFields.lookup(VD)) {
// Start with 'Result' referring to the complete closure object...
- Result =
shafik wrote:
Can you write a more detailed description explaining what the problem is what
the fix is.
This is what usually ends up in the git log and we want that to be as
descriptive as possible for folks who use it to understand changes quickly
without digging into details.
shafik wrote:
Please next time before you commit add a more detailed description of the
change so that readers of git log can get a better understanding of the change
w/o having to view it in detail.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67066
shafik wrote:
The PR description could have used more details. Was this fixing a crash bug, a
conformance issue, lack of diagnostic etc What is the new behavior would also
be helpful.
Was there a bug report linked to this fix? Is so that should be linked in the
description.
If we are fixing
shafik wrote:
Thank you for this work.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67996
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
shafik wrote:
I added a comment in the issue her:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/67959#issuecomment-1743564143
Please make sure to add references to the standard in appropriate places in
this PR.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66487
shafik wrote:
Thank you for the tests.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67965
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
shafik wrote:
Please make sure you add a description to your PR. This is what usually goes
into the git log and we want those entries to be as descriptive and helpful for
folks who read the git logs, thank you.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66963
shafik wrote:
Please make sure you add a description to your PR. This is what usually goes
into the git log and we want those entries to be as descriptive and helpful for
folks who read the git logs, thank you.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66963
https://github.com/shafik commented:
None of the implementations seem to agree with the resolution of the DR:
https://godbolt.org/z/a7nEvW5Gr
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
shafik wrote:
Thank you for improving the description. The description is usually what ends
up in the git log and so it is important for that summary there to be as
helpful and descriptive as possible.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67751
https://github.com/shafik approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67931
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/shafik closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67373
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/shafik commented:
I am a bit concerned we don't fully understand how to recover the old
diagnostic. I left a comment that I think may help but I think we need to
understand this a bit better before committing to a fix.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67817
https://github.com/shafik edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67817
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -2411,10 +2411,15 @@ static bool
CheckEvaluationResult(CheckEvaluationResultKind CERK,
const FieldDecl *SubobjectDecl,
CheckedTemporaries ) {
if (!Value.hasValue()) {
-assert(SubobjectDecl &&
https://github.com/shafik edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67788
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -85,6 +85,18 @@ KnownBits KnownBits::computeForAddSub(bool Add, bool NSW,
return KnownOut;
}
+KnownBits KnownBits::computeForSubBorrow(const KnownBits , KnownBits RHS,
+ const KnownBits ) {
+ assert(Borrow.getBitWidth() == 1 &&
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -triple x86_64-linux-gnu -verify %s
shafik wrote:
Maybe we should add tests to show parallels with `sizeof` e.g` *void* types and
incomplete types.
Also w/o parens etc
https://github.com/shafik commented:
Looks good but Aaron should look at it as well.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67805
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -5038,19 +5039,19 @@ void CXXNameMangler::mangleExpression(const Expr *E,
unsigned Arity,
Out << 'a';
MangleAlignofSizeofArg();
break;
+case UETT_DataSizeOf: {
+ Context.getDiags().Report(diag::err_cannot_mangle_expression)
+ <<
https://github.com/shafik edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67805
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
shafik wrote:
Thank you for the PR. Could you provide some context in the PR description?
From the title it sounds like there were prior changes that this is finishing.
It would be helpful to have a link to those prior changes.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67751
https://github.com/shafik updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67373
>From beab5db738483795ecb0bace2842acdbb1c9869a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Shafik Yaghmour
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 13:56:43 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [Clang] Fix crash when ill-formed code is treated as a
https://github.com/shafik approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67147
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -31,6 +31,33 @@ static_assert(b, "");
constexpr int one = true;
static_assert(one == 1, "");
+constexpr bool b2 = bool();
+static_assert(!b2, "");
+
+namespace ScalarTypes {
+ constexpr int ScalarInitInt = int();
+ static_assert(ScalarInitInt == 0, "");
+ constexpr
https://github.com/shafik edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67147
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/shafik edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67229
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ bool Ret(InterpState , CodePtr , APValue ) {
// FIXME: We could be calling isLive() here, but the emitted diagnostics
// seem a little weird, at least if the returned expression is of
// pointer type.
shafik wrote:
Can we add
https://github.com/shafik approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67229
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/shafik edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67229
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/shafik approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66862
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/shafik commented:
Apologies for the post commit review, just have one question.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67722
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
@@ -10977,6 +10987,9 @@ bool ArrayExprEvaluator::VisitArrayInitLoopExpr(const
ArrayInitLoopExpr *E) {
return false;
Success = false;
}
+
+// Make sure we run the destructors too.
+Scope.destroy();
shafik wrote:
So we don't have to
https://github.com/shafik edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67722
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
shafik wrote:
ping
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67373
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
shafik wrote:
ping
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67373
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/shafik updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67373
>From beab5db738483795ecb0bace2842acdbb1c9869a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Shafik Yaghmour
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 13:56:43 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [Clang] Fix crash when ill-formed code is treated as a
https://github.com/shafik updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67373
>From beab5db738483795ecb0bace2842acdbb1c9869a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Shafik Yaghmour
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 13:56:43 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [Clang] Fix crash when ill-formed code is treated as a
https://github.com/shafik approved this pull request.
Thank you for the quick fix.
LGTM, please add a release note.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67739
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
shafik wrote:
Thank you for the fix!
I don't think I understand the bug based on your description. You say
>the reason is that after evaluating the first iteration, we note a failure and
>would return, however during analyzing the second snippet
You start saying *first iteration* and then
https://github.com/shafik closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67514
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
shafik wrote:
I am going to merge this because I was informed that libc++ build is triggered
unnecessarily because I merged main into my branch.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67514
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
@@ -350,3 +350,22 @@ namespace ZeroInit {
static_assert(b.f[0] == 0.0, "");
static_assert(b.f[1] == 0.0, "");
}
+
+namespace StringZeroFill {
+ struct A {
+char c[12];
+ };
+ constexpr A a = { "abc" };
+ static_assert(a.c[0] == 'a', "");
+ static_assert(a.c[1] ==
@@ -350,3 +350,22 @@ namespace ZeroInit {
static_assert(b.f[0] == 0.0, "");
static_assert(b.f[1] == 0.0, "");
}
+
+namespace StringZeroFill {
+ struct A {
+char c[12];
+ };
+ constexpr A a = { "abc" };
+ static_assert(a.c[0] == 'a', "");
+ static_assert(a.c[1] ==
https://github.com/shafik edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66862
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -858,8 +858,8 @@ bool ByteCodeExprGen::VisitStringLiteral(const
StringLiteral *E) {
// If the initializer string is too long, a diagnostic has already been
// emitted. Read only the array length from the string literal.
- unsigned N =
-
https://github.com/shafik commented:
Minor comments on testing but I am curious about the size question.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66862
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://github.com/shafik updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67514
>From e2e0e10e13748ba9369b73c7547c035ee75dfffa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Shafik Yaghmour
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 18:55:44 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [Clang] Fix crash when visting a fold expression in a default
https://github.com/shafik updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67514
>From e2e0e10e13748ba9369b73c7547c035ee75dfffa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Shafik Yaghmour
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 18:55:44 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [Clang] Fix crash when visting a fold expression in a default
https://github.com/shafik updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67514
>From e2e0e10e13748ba9369b73c7547c035ee75dfffa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Shafik Yaghmour
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 18:55:44 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [Clang] Fix crash when visting a fold expression in a default
shafik wrote:
I wonder does this also fix this:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/67058
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67538
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
@@ -15090,8 +15093,9 @@ static void CheckImplicitConversion(Sema , Expr *E,
QualType T,
if (SourceBT && TargetBT && SourceBT->isIntegerType() &&
TargetBT->isFloatingType() && !IsListInit) {
// Determine the number of precision bits in the source integer type.
-
@@ -5490,6 +5490,9 @@
TreeTransform::TransformDependentSizedArrayType(TypeLocBuilder ,
EnterExpressionEvaluationContext Unevaluated(
SemaRef, Sema::ExpressionEvaluationContext::ConstantEvaluated);
+ // VLA bounds are not truly constant.
shafik
https://github.com/shafik created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67514
CheckDefaultArgumentVisitor::Visit(...) assumes that the children of Expr will
not be NULL. This is not a valid assumption and when we have a CXXFoldExpr the
children can be NULL and this causes a crash.
Fixes:
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+//===--===//
+//
+// Part of the LLVM Project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
Exceptions.
+// See https://llvm.org/LICENSE.txt for license information.
+// SPDX-License-Identifier:
https://github.com/shafik edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66576
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/shafik commented:
I think this is fine but I agree we should have a compat warning for this and I
would like to see more testing as well.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66576
___
cfe-commits mailing list
https://github.com/shafik edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66576
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/shafik resolved
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67373
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/shafik resolved
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67373
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/shafik updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67373
>From beab5db738483795ecb0bace2842acdbb1c9869a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Shafik Yaghmour
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 13:56:43 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [Clang] Fix crash when ill-formed code is treated as a
@@ -171,3 +171,12 @@ namespace CtorTemplateBeatsNonTemplateConversionFn {
Foo f(Derived d) { return d; } // expected-error {{invokes a deleted
function}}
Foo g(Derived d) { return Foo(d); } // ok, calls constructor
}
+
+namespace GH65522 {
+template
+class B3 : A3 {
+
shafik wrote:
I was originally going to roll-up this fix as part of:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148474 but it felt distinct enough to fix on its own
and then rebase the other PR afterwards.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67373
___
https://github.com/shafik created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67373
In some cases where ill-formed code could be interpreted as a deduction guide
we can crash because we reach an unreachable path. This fixes this issue by
introducing a diagnostic instead.
Fixes:
https://github.com/shafik commented:
Should they be valid for `constexpr` functions?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67360
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -2352,26 +2352,61 @@ static void handleUnusedAttr(Sema , Decl *D, const
ParsedAttr ) {
D->addAttr(::new (S.Context) UnusedAttr(S.Context, AL));
}
-static void handleConstructorAttr(Sema , Decl *D, const ParsedAttr ) {
- uint32_t priority =
https://github.com/shafik edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67360
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/shafik closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66270
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/shafik updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66270
>From b934841d7fc3d3447b23a9718a38742943f76916 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Shafik Yaghmour
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:09:28 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [Clang] Fix CXXRewrittenBinaryOperator::getDecomposedForm
https://github.com/shafik updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66270
>From b934841d7fc3d3447b23a9718a38742943f76916 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Shafik Yaghmour
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:09:28 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [Clang] Fix CXXRewrittenBinaryOperator::getDecomposedForm
https://github.com/shafik updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66270
>From b934841d7fc3d3447b23a9718a38742943f76916 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Shafik Yaghmour
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:09:28 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [Clang] Fix CXXRewrittenBinaryOperator::getDecomposedForm
Timm =?utf-8?q?Bäder?=
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
https://github.com/shafik edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67147
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
401 - 500 of 623 matches
Mail list logo
