On 24/02/16 23:03, Richard Smith wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Vassil Vassilev wrote:
On 24/02/16 22:50, Richard Smith wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Vassil Vassilev
wrote:
On 24/02/16 02:05, Richard Smith wrote:
Calling getMostRecentDecl seems like a slightly fragile way
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Vassil Vassilev wrote:
> On 24/02/16 22:50, Richard Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Vassil Vassilev
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24/02/16 02:05, Richard Smith wrote:
Calling getMostRecentDecl seems like a slightly fragile way to avoid
it
On 24/02/16 22:50, Richard Smith wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Vassil Vassilev wrote:
On 24/02/16 02:05, Richard Smith wrote:
Calling getMostRecentDecl seems like a slightly fragile way to avoid
iterator invalidation here. Instead...
@@ -214,6 +212,19 @@ namespace clang {
u
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Vassil Vassilev wrote:
>
> On 24/02/16 02:05, Richard Smith wrote:
>>
>> Calling getMostRecentDecl seems like a slightly fragile way to avoid
>> iterator invalidation here. Instead...
>>
>> @@ -214,6 +212,19 @@ namespace clang {
>> unsigned I = Record.size(
On 24/02/16 02:05, Richard Smith wrote:
Calling getMostRecentDecl seems like a slightly fragile way to avoid
iterator invalidation here. Instead...
@@ -214,6 +212,19 @@ namespace clang {
unsigned I = Record.size();
Record.push_back(0);
+ auto &Specializations = Common->Spe
Calling getMostRecentDecl seems like a slightly fragile way to avoid
iterator invalidation here. Instead...
@@ -214,6 +212,19 @@ namespace clang {
unsigned I = Record.size();
Record.push_back(0);
+ auto &Specializations = Common->Specializations;
+ auto &&PartialSpecializa
ping...
On 30/01/16 21:13, Vassil Vassilev wrote:
On 30/01/16 18:36, David Blaikie wrote:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Vassil Vassilev
wrote:
AFAICT the making a test case independent on STL is the hard
part. I think it will be always failing due to the relocation of
the me
On 30/01/16 18:36, David Blaikie wrote:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Vassil Vassilev
mailto:v.g.vassi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
AFAICT the making a test case independent on STL is the hard part.
I think it will be always failing due to the relocation of the
memory region of the u
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Vassil Vassilev
wrote:
> AFAICT the making a test case independent on STL is the hard part. I think
> it will be always failing due to the relocation of the memory region of the
> underlying SmallVector.
>
Sorry, I think I didn't explain myself well. What I mean
AFAICT the making a test case independent on STL is the hard part. I
think it will be always failing due to the relocation of the memory
region of the underlying SmallVector.
On 30/01/16 17:37, David Blaikie wrote:
Yeah, it's good to have a reproduction, but I wouldn't actually commit
one - u
Yeah, it's good to have a reproduction, but I wouldn't actually commit one
- unless you have a checked stl to test against that always fails on
possibly-invalidating sequences of operations, then you'd have a fairly
simple reproduction
On Jan 30, 2016 8:23 AM, "Vassil Vassilev" wrote:
> Sorry.
>
Sorry.
Our module builds choke on merging several modules, containing
declarations from STL (we are using libc++, no modulemaps).
When writing a new module containing the definition of a STL
reverse_iterator, it collects all its template specializations. Some of
the specializations need to b
It might be handy to give an overview of the issue in the review (&
certainly in the commit) message rather than only citing the bug number
On Jan 30, 2016 6:49 AM, "Vassil Vassilev via cfe-commits" <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Attaching a fix to https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=262
Attaching a fix to https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26237
Please review.
Many thanks!
--Vassil
From da6b27875042ee23afaf898f189e410f177311ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vassil Vassilev
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 14:50:06 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] [modules] Writing out template specializations
14 matches
Mail list logo
