llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `premerge-monolithic-linux`
running on `premerge-linux-1` while building `clang-tools-extra,clang` at step
6 "build-unified-tree".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/153/builds/9025
Here
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `clang-x86_64-debian-fast`
running on `gribozavr4` while building `clang-tools-extra,clang` at step 6
"test-build-unified-tree-check-all".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/56/builds/7472
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `clang-aarch64-quick`
running on `linaro-clang-aarch64-quick` while building
`clang-tools-extra,clang` at step 5 "ninja check 1".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/65/builds/4601
Here is
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `clangd-ubuntu-tsan`
running on `clangd-ubuntu-clang` while building `clang-tools-extra,clang` at
step 6 "test-build-clangd-clangd-index-server-clangd-indexer-check-clangd".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/
AaronBallman wrote:
I've reverted; @igelbox, you can create a new PR that addresses the failures
found by post-commit CI and I'll review them.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108187
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
htt
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `llvm-clang-aarch64-darwin`
running on `doug-worker-5` while building `clang-tools-extra,clang` at step 5
"build-unified-tree".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/190/builds/5825
Here is
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `flang-aarch64-libcxx`
running on `linaro-flang-aarch64-libcxx` while building
`clang-tools-extra,clang` at step 5 "build-unified-tree".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/89/builds/6426
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder
`openmp-offload-sles-build-only` running on `rocm-worker-hw-04-sles` while
building `clang-tools-extra,clang` at step 5 "compile-openmp".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/140/builds/6654
erichkeane wrote:
@igelbox: That seems to be a problem with this patch! If it is something you
cannot fix/get a review up for very quickly so we can accept/get it in, we'll
have to revert this. Please let us know ASAP what you'd like to do.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108187
__
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `ppc64le-flang-rhel-clang`
running on `ppc64le-flang-rhel-test` while building `clang-tools-extra,clang`
at step 5 "build-unified-tree".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/157/builds/7831
AaronBallman wrote:
> > LGTM! Do you need someone to land these changes on your behalf?
>
> I suppose so.. or what are my options? The Merge button isn't active of
> course. I believe someone from maintainers would merge this PR and I will be
> so proud)
I've merged on your behalf (I sometime
github-actions[bot] wrote:
@igelbox Congratulations on having your first Pull Request (PR) merged into the
LLVM Project!
Your changes will be combined with recent changes from other authors, then
tested by our [build bots](https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/). If there is a
problem with a build,
https://github.com/AaronBallman closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108187
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
igelbox wrote:
> LGTM! Do you need someone to land these changes on your behalf?
I suppose so.. or what are my options? The Merge button isn't active of course.
I believe someone from maintainers would merge this PR and I will be so proud)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108187
__
https://github.com/AaronBallman approved this pull request.
LGTM! Do you need someone to land these changes on your behalf?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108187
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/
@@ -945,50 +959,11 @@ class DiagnosticsEngine : public
RefCountedBase {
void Report(const StoredDiagnostic &storedDiag);
- /// Determine whethere there is already a diagnostic in flight.
- bool isDiagnosticInFlight() const {
-return CurDiagID != std::numeric_limits::
https://github.com/igelbox updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108187
>From aee4cf70dedaa3c8b7b6508238e01f92d60c631c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sergei
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 16:19:05 +
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] fix quick OOM in FormatDiagnostic
---
.../ClangTidyDiagnosticCons
@@ -945,50 +959,11 @@ class DiagnosticsEngine : public
RefCountedBase {
void Report(const StoredDiagnostic &storedDiag);
- /// Determine whethere there is already a diagnostic in flight.
- bool isDiagnosticInFlight() const {
-return CurDiagID != std::numeric_limits::
igelbox wrote:
Whew, managed to add both tests.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108187
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fallow-pch-with-compiler-errors -std=c++20 -x c++-header
-emit-pch %s -o %t -verify
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fallow-pch-with-compiler-errors -std=c++20 -include-pch %t
%s -verify
igelbox wrote:
In the `main` branch it didn't fa
https://github.com/igelbox edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108187
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/igelbox edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108187
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/igelbox updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108187
>From aee4cf70dedaa3c8b7b6508238e01f92d60c631c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sergei
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 16:19:05 +
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] fix quick OOM in FormatDiagnostic
---
.../ClangTidyDiagnosticCons
@@ -538,24 +511,51 @@ bool DiagnosticsEngine::EmitCurrentDiagnostic(bool Force)
{
Emitted = (DiagLevel != DiagnosticIDs::Ignored);
if (Emitted) {
// Emit the diagnostic regardless of suppression level.
- Diags->EmitDiag(*this, DiagLevel);
+ Diags->EmitD
@@ -571,8 +571,7 @@ DiagnosticIDs::getDiagnosticSeverity(unsigned DiagID,
SourceLocation Loc,
}
// If explicitly requested, map fatal errors to errors.
- if (Result == diag::Severity::Fatal &&
- Diag.CurDiagID != diag::fatal_too_many_errors && Diag.FatalsAsError)
--
@@ -538,24 +511,51 @@ bool DiagnosticsEngine::EmitCurrentDiagnostic(bool Force)
{
Emitted = (DiagLevel != DiagnosticIDs::Ignored);
if (Emitted) {
// Emit the diagnostic regardless of suppression level.
- Diags->EmitDiag(*this, DiagLevel);
+ Diags->EmitD
@@ -571,8 +571,7 @@ DiagnosticIDs::getDiagnosticSeverity(unsigned DiagID,
SourceLocation Loc,
}
// If explicitly requested, map fatal errors to errors.
- if (Result == diag::Severity::Fatal &&
- Diag.CurDiagID != diag::fatal_too_many_errors && Diag.FatalsAsError)
--
https://github.com/igelbox updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108187
>From aee4cf70dedaa3c8b7b6508238e01f92d60c631c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sergei
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 16:19:05 +
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] fix quick OOM in FormatDiagnostic
---
.../ClangTidyDiagnosticCons
AaronBallman wrote:
> > Have you run your changes with address and ub sanitizers to see if there
> > are some uncaught edge cases?
>
> Not quire sure I get the point about UB-sanitizers. I tested this changes
> against my proprietary code which caused the issue with OOM/infinite-loop and
> it
igelbox wrote:
> I'm not certain that there is a reasonable way to add test coverage for the
> changes, but if you can devise a test, that would be appreciated.
I wonder there should be some tests like:
- input = some source files
- output = expected it compiles well and has no assertions fired
igelbox wrote:
> Have you run your changes with address and ub sanitizers to see if there are
> some uncaught edge cases?
Not quire sure I get the point about UB-sanitizers. I tested this changes
against my proprietary code which caused the issue with OOM/infinite-loop and
it works just fine.
@@ -538,24 +511,51 @@ bool DiagnosticsEngine::EmitCurrentDiagnostic(bool Force)
{
Emitted = (DiagLevel != DiagnosticIDs::Ignored);
if (Emitted) {
// Emit the diagnostic regardless of suppression level.
- Diags->EmitDiag(*this, DiagLevel);
+ Diags->EmitD
https://github.com/AaronBallman edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108187
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -538,24 +511,51 @@ bool DiagnosticsEngine::EmitCurrentDiagnostic(bool Force)
{
Emitted = (DiagLevel != DiagnosticIDs::Ignored);
if (Emitted) {
// Emit the diagnostic regardless of suppression level.
- Diags->EmitDiag(*this, DiagLevel);
+ Diags->EmitD
@@ -571,8 +571,7 @@ DiagnosticIDs::getDiagnosticSeverity(unsigned DiagID,
SourceLocation Loc,
}
// If explicitly requested, map fatal errors to errors.
- if (Result == diag::Severity::Fatal &&
- Diag.CurDiagID != diag::fatal_too_many_errors && Diag.FatalsAsError)
--
@@ -538,24 +511,51 @@ bool DiagnosticsEngine::EmitCurrentDiagnostic(bool Force)
{
Emitted = (DiagLevel != DiagnosticIDs::Ignored);
if (Emitted) {
// Emit the diagnostic regardless of suppression level.
- Diags->EmitDiag(*this, DiagLevel);
+ Diags->EmitD
https://github.com/AaronBallman commented:
Thank you for working on this! I'm not certain that there is a reasonable way
to add test coverage for the changes, but if you can devise a test, that would
be appreciated.
Have you run your changes with address and ub sanitizers to see if there are
@@ -538,24 +511,51 @@ bool DiagnosticsEngine::EmitCurrentDiagnostic(bool Force)
{
Emitted = (DiagLevel != DiagnosticIDs::Ignored);
if (Emitted) {
// Emit the diagnostic regardless of suppression level.
- Diags->EmitDiag(*this, DiagLevel);
+ Diags->EmitD
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-driver
Author: Vakhurin Sergei (igelbox)
Changes
Resolves: #70930 (and probably latest comments from
https://github.com/clangd/clangd/issues/251)
by fixing racing for the shared `DiagStorage` value which caused messing w
https://github.com/igelbox ready_for_review
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108187
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/igelbox updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108187
>From aee4cf70dedaa3c8b7b6508238e01f92d60c631c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sergei
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 16:19:05 +
Subject: [PATCH] fix quick OOM in FormatDiagnostic
---
.../ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer
https://github.com/igelbox edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108187
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/igelbox edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108187
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/igelbox edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108187
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -538,24 +511,51 @@ bool DiagnosticsEngine::EmitCurrentDiagnostic(bool Force)
{
Emitted = (DiagLevel != DiagnosticIDs::Ignored);
if (Emitted) {
// Emit the diagnostic regardless of suppression level.
- Diags->EmitDiag(*this, DiagLevel);
+ Diags->EmitD
@@ -1333,13 +1263,7 @@ class DiagnosticBuilder : public StreamingDiagnostic {
public:
/// Copy constructor. When copied, this "takes" the diagnostic info from the
/// input and neuters it.
- DiagnosticBuilder(const DiagnosticBuilder &D) : StreamingDiagnostic() {
-Diag
@@ -571,8 +571,7 @@ DiagnosticIDs::getDiagnosticSeverity(unsigned DiagID,
SourceLocation Loc,
}
// If explicitly requested, map fatal errors to errors.
- if (Result == diag::Severity::Fatal &&
- Diag.CurDiagID != diag::fatal_too_many_errors && Diag.FatalsAsError)
--
github-actions[bot] wrote:
Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project!
This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be notified.
If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this
page.
If this is not working for you, it
https://github.com/igelbox created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108187
Resolves: #70930 (and probably latest comments from #251)
by fixing racing for the shared `DiagStorage` value which caused messing with
args inside the storage and then formatting the following message with
`ge
49 matches
Mail list logo
