https://github.com/philnik777 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/123078
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `lldb-remote-linux-ubuntu`
running on `as-builder-9` while building `clang` at step 16
"test-check-lldb-api".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/195/builds/4539
Here is the relevant piece
https://github.com/AaronBallman approved this pull request.
LGTM but please update the patch summary when landing to mention that this was
deprecated in Clang 20.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/123078
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commit
https://github.com/philnik777 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/123078
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/philnik777 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/123078
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
AaronBallman wrote:
> > I would just say 'document for a release' then remove
>
> Works for me
I took a look at the projects I could find using it on sourcegraph and I agree
that we should be fine to document for a release and then remove.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/123078
cor3ntin wrote:
> I would just say 'document for a release' then remove
Works for me
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/123078
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
erichkeane wrote:
> Should we deprecate it in 20, remove in 21? _almost_ is not 0
> https://github.com/search?q=__is_referenceable%28&type=code
Eh, it is pretty effectively 0. If you subtract ones that are wrapped in '#if
0' or part of libcxx, the first two pages have like 3 entries on them.
philnik777 wrote:
> Should we deprecate it in 20, remove in 21? _almost_ is not 0
> https://github.com/search?q=__is_referenceable%28&type=code
What exactly would you like to do? Make `__has_builtin(__is_referenceable)`
return 0 but still accept `__is_referenceable` for a release?
https://git
cor3ntin wrote:
Should we deprecate it in 20, remove in 21? _almost_ is not 0
https://github.com/search?q=__is_referenceable%28&type=code
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/123078
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://l
github-actions[bot] wrote:
:warning: C/C++ code formatter, clang-format found issues in your code.
:warning:
You can test this locally with the following command:
``bash
git-clang-format --diff 6affc1837537a802531a5394535f1f0b7ca865cb
3be22495bce1a182120ca0b1e17875efd5ac02f1 --e
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Nikolas Klauser (philnik777)
Changes
`__is_referenceable` is almost unused in the wild, and the few cases I was able
to find had checks around them. Since The places in the standard library where
`__is_referenceable` is used have bespoke
https://github.com/philnik777 created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/123078
`__is_referenceable` is almost unused in the wild, and the few cases I was able
to find had checks around them. Since The places in the standard library where
`__is_referenceable` is used have bespoke builti
13 matches
Mail list logo
