[clang] [CIR] Build out AST consumer patterns to reach the entry point into CIRGen (PR #91007)

Lancern wrote: FWIW, the current practice uses CamelCase for CIRGen and camelBack for all other CIR stuff. Most code in CIRGen is directly ported from clang CodeGen and the code style is kept as-is, while other part of CIR is invented from scratch and we follow MLIR style guides. I'm not sure

[clang] [clang][Sema] deleted overriding function can have lax except spec (PR #76248)

https://github.com/Lancern updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76248 >From c219e38a7953b5bd494554760043053ae3b8ff60 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sirui Mu Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2023 00:02:08 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/5] [clang][Sema] deleted overriding function can have lax except

[clang] [clang][Sema] deleted overriding function can have lax except spec (PR #76248)

https://github.com/Lancern updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76248 >From c219e38a7953b5bd494554760043053ae3b8ff60 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sirui Mu Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2023 00:02:08 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [clang][Sema] deleted overriding function can have lax except

[clang] [clang][Sema] deleted overriding function can have lax except spec (PR #76248)

Lancern wrote: Oops, code formatter formats unrelated code. Revert and re-commit. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76248 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang][Sema] deleted overriding function can have lax except spec (PR #76248)

https://github.com/Lancern updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76248 >From c219e38a7953b5bd494554760043053ae3b8ff60 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sirui Mu Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2023 00:02:08 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang][Sema] deleted overriding function can have lax except

[clang-tools-extra] [clang-tidy] Treat fields in anonymous records as names in enclosing scope when checking name styles (PR #75701)

https://github.com/Lancern updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75701 >From 5d04ca8091fc81fad8e33355a0afcce290bf34f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sirui Mu Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2023 21:55:24 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/5] [clang-tidy] Check anonymous record field naming in enclosing

[clang] [clang-tools-extra] [Sema][clangd] add noexcept to override functions during code completion (PR #75937)

Lancern wrote: > Feel free to put up a PR / issue for this if you are interested. Hi Younan. FYI, I have opened a new PR that addresses this problem. See #76248. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75937 ___ cfe-commits mailing list

[clang] [clang][Sema] deleted overriding function can have lax except spec (PR #76248)

https://github.com/Lancern created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76248 According to [CWG1351](https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/1351.html), overriding functions that are defined as deleted can have more lax exception specifications compared to the base version. For example,

[clang-tools-extra] [clang] [Sema][clangd] add noexcept to override functions during code completion (PR #75937)

https://github.com/Lancern updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75937 >From 6e5e6986559a8d8a72901baf60cbc3b9163a7cd7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sirui Mu Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 22:24:23 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [clangd][Sema] add noexcept to override functions during code

[clang] [clang-tools-extra] [Sema][clangd] add noexcept to override functions during code completion (PR #75937)

Lancern wrote: > The place you're patching is not only specific to "completing override > functions", but handles all completion strings involving function > declarations. OK. I'll move the changes to the `CodeCompletionResult::createCodeCompletionStringForOverride` function which seems

[clang] [clang-tools-extra] [Sema][clangd] add noexcept to override functions during code completion (PR #75937)

Lancern wrote: > For the test, it would be better to write it in [this > format](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/tree/main/clang/test/CodeCompletion) > rather than using clangd. Thanks for your helpful review. I'll move the test to

[clang] [clang-tools-extra] [Sema][clangd] add noexcept to override functions during code completion (PR #75937)

Lancern wrote: > I didn't see anything reflecting this condition; are you still working on > this patch? No, this is not a WIP. I primarily changed the `CodeCompletionResult::createCodeCompletionStringForDecl` function, which is called during code completion to generate the override function

[clang] [clang-tools-extra] [Sema][clangd] add noexcept to override functions during code completion (PR #75937)

https://github.com/Lancern created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75937 If a virtual function is declared with `noexcept`, functions that override this function in the derived classes must be declared with `noexcept` as well. This PR updates code completion in clang Sema. It adds

[clang-tools-extra] [clang-tidy] Treat fields in anonymous records as names in enclosing scope when checking name styles (PR #75701)

https://github.com/Lancern updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75701 >From 5d04ca8091fc81fad8e33355a0afcce290bf34f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sirui Mu Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2023 21:55:24 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [clang-tidy] Check anonymous record field naming in enclosing

[clang-tools-extra] [clang-tidy] Treat fields in anonymous records as names in enclosing scope when checking name styles (PR #75701)

https://github.com/Lancern updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75701 >From 5d04ca8091fc81fad8e33355a0afcce290bf34f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sirui Mu Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2023 21:55:24 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [clang-tidy] Check anonymous record field naming in enclosing

[clang-tools-extra] [clang-tidy] Treat fields in anonymous records as names in enclosing scope when checking name styles (PR #75701)

https://github.com/Lancern created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75701 Currently, fields in anonymous records are treated as normal record members during naming style check. This can be undesirable in certain situations since these fields are used just like names in their

[clang] [clang] Parse attribute [[gnu::no_stack_protector]] (PR #75289)

https://github.com/Lancern updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75289 >From d8de529580101ba68dc1c981aec8711aa0c58da4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sirui Mu Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 06:51:09 + Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [clang] Parse attribute [[gnu::no_stack_protector]] This commit

[clang] [clang] Parse attribute [[gnu::no_stack_protector]] (PR #75289)

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -std=c23 %s Lancern wrote: My concern is that names such as `attr-no-stack-protector.cpp` are too "specific". No other single attribute has its dedicated test file under the test directory.

[clang] [clang] Parse attribute [[gnu::no_stack_protector]] (PR #75289)

https://github.com/Lancern updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75289 >From d8de529580101ba68dc1c981aec8711aa0c58da4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sirui Mu Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 06:51:09 + Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang] Parse attribute [[gnu::no_stack_protector]] This commit

[clang] [clang] Parse attribute [[gnu::no_stack_protector]] (PR #75289)

https://github.com/Lancern edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75289 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [clang] Parse attribute [[gnu::no_stack_protector]] (PR #75289)

https://github.com/Lancern created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75289 This commit adds relative TableGen definitions to parse the [[gnu::no_stack_protector]] attribute. This PR addresses issue #75235. >From d8de529580101ba68dc1c981aec8711aa0c58da4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: