On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:54 AM John Marshall
wrote:
>
> On 18 Feb 2020, at 16:40, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> > Yup, I saw the failure on IRC and pushed up a change
>
> Thanks again Aaron. Now that the dust has settled, bug 23564 can be closed
> (fixed by commit 260b91f379c) if someone with a bugzi
On 18 Feb 2020, at 16:40, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> Yup, I saw the failure on IRC and pushed up a change
Thanks again Aaron. Now that the dust has settled, bug 23564 can be closed
(fixed by commit 260b91f379c) if someone with a bugzilla account wants to do
that. I didn't search further to see if t
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:37 AM John Marshall
wrote:
>
> On 18 Feb 2020, at 16:24, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> >
> > I've commit on your behalf in
> > 260b91f379c8f86d3d6008648b3f2a945a007888, thank you for the patch!
>
> Thanks very much, Aaron.
>
> I regret to report that this appears to have broke
On 18 Feb 2020, at 16:24, Aaron Ballman wrote:
>
> I've commit on your behalf in
> 260b91f379c8f86d3d6008648b3f2a945a007888, thank you for the patch!
Thanks very much, Aaron.
I regret to report that this appears to have broken an additional test [1] that
I didn't see when running the test suit
I've commit on your behalf in
260b91f379c8f86d3d6008648b3f2a945a007888, thank you for the patch!
~Aaron
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 12:42 PM Aaron Ballman wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 10:06 AM John Marshall
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Aaron (and Hubert).
> >
> > I've attached an updated patch tha
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 10:06 AM John Marshall
wrote:
>
> Thanks Aaron (and Hubert).
>
> I've attached an updated patch that now includes new test cases alongside
> some existing "too few / too many" test cases in test/Sema/exprs.c. This
> splits the function declaration over two lines so it can
Thanks Aaron (and Hubert).
I've attached an updated patch that now includes new test cases alongside some
existing "too few / too many" test cases in test/Sema/exprs.c. This splits the
function declaration over two lines so it can use -verify to validate the
source location's line (but not colu
Thank you for the patch -- I think the changes look reasonable, but it
should come with some test cases as well. Source location stuff is a
bit onerous to try to test, but I think the best approach would be to
add a new test that uses FileCheck instead of -verify so that you can
validate the source
I think this looks okay. I think Richard or Aaron might be able to provide
a more informed opinion.
-- HT
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 10:06 AM John Marshall via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Ping. I am a newcomer to Clang so don't know who might be appropriate
> reviewers to CC,
Ping. I am a newcomer to Clang so don't know who might be appropriate reviewers
to CC, so I've CCed a couple of general people from clang/CODE_OWNERS.TXT who
may be able to forward as appropriate.
Thanks,
John
On 20 Jan 2020, at 16:09, John Marshall wrote:
>
> This small patch improves t
This patch has been languishing for 10 days, and it has been pointed out on
cfe-dev that it is important to directly CC appropriate reviewers. As there's
no-one listed in clang/CODE_OWNERS.TXT for diagnostics, I've now CCed "all
other parts" Richard.
On 20 Jan 2020, at 16:09, John Marshall via
This small patch improves the diagnostics when calling a function with the
wrong number of arguments. For example, given
int
foo(int a, int b);
int bar() { return foo(1); }
The existing compiler shows the error message and a note for "foo declared
here" showing only the
12 matches
Mail list logo
