> On Nov 29, 2016, at 12:24 PM, Brian Gesiak wrote:
>
> Thanks all! It's great to hear that this wouldn't be completely unwelcome --
> especially Swift Darwin with Objective-C interop disabled.
To be clear, I didn't mean to discourage you (or anyone else watching) from
adding support for non-
Thanks all! It's great to hear that this wouldn't be completely unwelcome
-- especially Swift Darwin with Objective-C interop disabled.
I'll try and send a patch sometime soon -- although I'm busy with work
stuff, so at the latest it'll be sometime in December... in the meantime, I
created a task
> On Nov 29, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Ryan Lovelett via swift-dev
> wrote:
>
> Is it known/expected that Swift will not build with Clang 3.9.0? My
> personal build-bot recently updated its upstream dependency from Clang
> 3.8.1 to Clang 3.9.0 and since then it will not build the
> swift-3.0.1-RELEASE.
> On Nov 29, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Ryan Lovelett via swift-dev
> wrote:
>
> Is it known/expected that Swift will not build with Clang 3.9.0?
Yes. LLVM and Clang's interfaces are not stable. You must build Swift against
the 'stable' branch of the 'swift-llvm' and 'swift-clang' forks.
-Joe
___
I wouldn’t recommend this in general. This will just make resiliently linked
programs incredibly unstable. There’s often something better that can be done,
but it requires thinking about your particular case and the particular enum.
* ignore what you don’t understand (or care about)
* map it to
Is it known/expected that Swift will not build with Clang 3.9.0? My
personal build-bot recently updated its upstream dependency from Clang
3.8.1 to Clang 3.9.0 and since then it will not build the
swift-3.0.1-RELEASE. It seems that others have noticed this
(https://gist.github.com/eyeplum/94627aac7
Hi Slava,
I was hoping I'd be able to reuse the ArrayRef, but at this
point, the call has already been specialized, and I don't see a way to
recover the substitutions that were used. Do you know of a way to do this?
Ben
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:40 AM Slava Pestov wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Nov 2
Hi Ben,
> On Nov 29, 2016, at 12:10 AM, Ben Ng wrote:
>
> Hi Slava,
>
> The use of the unsubstituted function type turned out to be the issue. The
> verifier was satisfied after I fixed that, and my proof of concept worked.
Great to hear!
>
> For context, I'm working on an addition to the A
Hi,
The PR linux builder for swiftpm (
https://ci.swift.org/job/swift-package-manager-PR-Linux/ ) has been failing
consistently with some lldb related tests:
https://ci.swift.org/job/swift-package-manager-PR-Linux/678/
https://ci.swift.org/job/swift-package-manager-PR-Linux/676/
___
Hi Slava,
The use of the unsubstituted function type turned out to be the issue. The
verifier was satisfied after I fixed that, and my proof of concept worked.
For context, I'm working on an addition to the ArrayValuePropagation pass
that makes code like this:
foo += [5]
Equivalent to this code
10 matches
Mail list logo
