hfinkel accepted this revision.
hfinkel added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D30806
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe
echristo added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30415#703652, @uweigand wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30415#703442, @hfinkel wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30415#703398, @echristo wrote:
> >
> > > Different suggestion:
> > >
> > > Remove the faltivec option. Even gcc doe
mehdi_amini added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31114#704748, @tejohnson wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31114#704733, @mehdi_amini wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31114#704728, @tejohnson wrote:
> >
> > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31114#704726, @mehdi_amini wrote:
>
tejohnson added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31114#704733, @mehdi_amini wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31114#704728, @tejohnson wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31114#704726, @mehdi_amini wrote:
> >
> > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31114#704649, @tejohnson wrote:
> >
mehdi_amini added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31114#704728, @tejohnson wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31114#704726, @mehdi_amini wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31114#704649, @tejohnson wrote:
> >
> > > I think you won't get the correct handling of -emit-llvm and
> >
tejohnson added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31114#704726, @mehdi_amini wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31114#704649, @tejohnson wrote:
>
> > I think you won't get the correct handling of -emit-llvm and -emit-llvm-bc
> > since we don't get the handling for Backend_Emit* in
> >
mehdi_amini added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31114#704649, @tejohnson wrote:
> I think you won't get the correct handling of -emit-llvm and -emit-llvm-bc
> since we don't get the handling for Backend_Emit* in
> EmitAssemblyHelper::EmitAssembly.
I was not trying to achieve this. A
mehdi_amini added inline comments.
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp:982
std::unique_ptr OS) {
+ EmitAssemblyHelper AsmHelper(Diags, HeaderOpts, CGOpts, TOpts, LOpts, M);
+
tejohnson wrote:
> Why did this move?
"History
aaron.ballman added a comment.
I really like the way this feature is shaping up! I apologize for how long it
took to review the code (I was out for work for two weeks and this is a pretty
extensive patch). Thank you for the continued efforts on this.
Comment at: docs/Language
aaron.ballman accepted this revision.
aaron.ballman added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Aside from the request for a FIXME and a decision from the author on error vs
warning, the code LGTM. Feel free to make a decision and commit without further
review.
=
tejohnson added a comment.
I think you won't get the correct handling of -emit-llvm and -emit-llvm-bc
since we don't get the handling for Backend_Emit* in
EmitAssemblyHelper::EmitAssembly.
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp:595
llvm::Optional RM;
RM = llvm::S
Author: rengolin
Date: Sat Mar 18 07:31:32 2017
New Revision: 298185
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=298185&view=rev
Log:
Revert "Modules: Cache PCMs in memory and avoid a use-after-free"
This reverts commit r298165, as it broke the ARM builds.
Removed:
cfe/trunk/include/clang/B
alexfh added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31097#704626, @alexfh wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31097#704621, @xazax.hun wrote:
>
> > I wonder whether warning on implicit casts still makes sense for example in
> > mission critical code. So maybe it is worth to have a configurati
xazax.hun added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31097#704626, @alexfh wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31097#704621, @xazax.hun wrote:
>
> > I wonder whether warning on implicit casts still makes sense for example in
> > mission critical code. So maybe it is worth to have a configur
alexfh added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31097#704621, @xazax.hun wrote:
> I wonder whether warning on implicit casts still makes sense for example in
> mission critical code. So maybe it is worth to have a configuration option
> with the default setting being less strict and chatty
xazax.hun added a comment.
I wonder whether warning on implicit casts still makes sense for example in
mission critical code. So maybe it is worth to have a configuration option with
the default setting being less strict and chatty. What do you think?
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llv
16 matches
Mail list logo