cdavis5x abandoned this revision.
cdavis5x added a comment.
Consensus seems clear to me. Patch abandoned.
Repository:
rUNW libunwind
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50413
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi
rnk added a comment.
So, basically, if we have no internal users for these typedefs, there's no
reason to clutter up headers that get installed into system header directories
everywhere with dead ifdefed out code. Sounds good to me, let's not do it.
Repository:
rUNW libunwind
https://review
kristina added a comment.
Probably not, I'm personally against adding more and more typedefs for things
that are just `stdint/inttypes.h` stuff and I say here the change is
insignificant enough to warrant having to define even more types. It's not
causing any problems but unless there are actua
rnk added a comment.
Do we still need or want this? It doesn't look like it would hurt.
Repository:
rUNW libunwind
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50413
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listi
krytarowski added a comment.
From my point of view, the number of people who have idea about these types and
why do they differ between ABIs and OSes is so low, that it's even hard to get
someone to review it here.
Repository:
rUNW libunwind
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50413
__
kristina added a comment.
This doesn't seem like a great idea to me, it's a negligible amount of type
safety gained over using `stdint.h` types most people are more familiar with
anyway. If you need something niche like those typedefs it's probably better to
include the header and define them y
joerg added a comment.
Is there a reason for defining them? As in: does anything outside libunwind use
them? I haven't seen such software yet.
Repository:
rUNW libunwind
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50413
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@li
cdavis5x added a comment.
Ping.
Are y'all waiting for me to do something?
Repository:
rUNW libunwind
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50413
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commi
cdavis5x added a comment.
Ping.
Repository:
rUNW libunwind
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50413
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
cdavis5x added a comment.
Ping.
Repository:
rUNW libunwind
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50413
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
cdavis5x added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50413#1195101, @mstorsjo wrote:
> @cdavis5x I presume the fact that this one turned out tricky is blocking
> submitting the SEH unwinding patch.
>
> Would it be worth to rework that patch to just use the basic types just like
> libunwind do
mstorsjo added a comment.
@cdavis5x I presume the fact that this one turned out tricky is blocking
submitting the SEH unwinding patch.
Would it be worth to rework that patch to just use the basic types just like
libunwind does today, e.g. having `_Unwind_GetRegionStart` return plain
`uintptr_t
krytarowski added a subscriber: joerg.
krytarowski added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50413#1192475, @cdavis5x wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50413#1191726, @krytarowski wrote:
>
> > NetBSD uses `typedef void *_Unwind_Ptr;` unconditionally in its
> > ``... if that has to be mat
cdavis5x updated this revision to Diff 159731.
cdavis5x added a comment.
- Add NetBSD-specific definitions.
- Pull out common declaration of `__personality_routine`.
Repository:
rUNW libunwind
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50413
Files:
include/unwind.h
Index: include/unwind.h
===
cdavis5x marked an inline comment as done.
cdavis5x added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50413#1191726, @krytarowski wrote:
> NetBSD uses `typedef void *_Unwind_Ptr;` unconditionally in its
> ``... if that has to be matched.
Done.
> Additionally: `typedef long _Unwind_Word;`.
Done.
cdavis5x added inline comments.
Comment at: include/unwind.h:46
+typedef uintptr_t _Unwind_Ptr;
+#endif
+
mstorsjo wrote:
> What other reference is this list of typedefs for `_Unwind_Ptr` based on? I
> don't see any of these cases in clang's unwind.h at least.
W
mstorsjo added inline comments.
Comment at: include/unwind.h:46
+typedef uintptr_t _Unwind_Ptr;
+#endif
+
What other reference is this list of typedefs for `_Unwind_Ptr` based on? I
don't see any of these cases in clang's unwind.h at least.
Co
krytarowski added a comment.
NetBSD uses `typedef void *_Unwind_Ptr;` unconditionally in its ``...
if that has to be matched.
Additionally: `typedef long _Unwind_Word;`.
Repository:
rUNW libunwind
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50413
___
cfe-commits
cdavis5x created this revision.
cdavis5x added reviewers: mstorsjo, rnk, compnerd, smeenai.
Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, chrib, christof, krytarowski.
Add these declarations which should be present in ``,
but aren't. Not that it matters, since most of the time we'll be using
Clang's `` a
19 matches
Mail list logo
