sfantao added a comment.
Hi Art,
Thanks for the the review!
Comment at: include/clang/Driver/Action.h:79
@@ +78,3 @@
+OFFLOAD_None = 0x00,
+OFFLOAD_CUDA = 0x01,
+ };
tra wrote:
> Nit: All-caps CUDA looks weird here. _Cuda may be better choice.
> If you
sfantao updated this revision to Diff 52879.
sfantao marked 15 inline comments as done.
sfantao added a comment.
Address Art, Justin and Eric comments.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D18171
Files:
include/clang/Driver/Action.h
include/clang/Driver/Compilation.h
include/clang/Driver/Driver.h
li
sfantao added a comment.
Hi Art, Justin,
Thanks for the review and feedback! Tried to address your concerns. Let me know
other suggestion you may have.
Thanks again,
Samuel
Comment at: include/clang/Driver/Action.h:95
@@ +94,3 @@
+ /// same host. Therefore, the host offloadi
sfantao marked 8 inline comments as done.
sfantao added a comment.
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the review!
As you are probably a aware, I started partitioning this patch following your
initial concern related with the size of this patch and the feedback I got from
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-d
sfantao updated this revision to Diff 52881.
sfantao updated the summary for this revision.
sfantao added a comment.
Rebase.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D18172
Files:
include/clang/Driver/Compilation.h
lib/Driver/Driver.cpp
Index: lib/Driver/Driver.cpp
=
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Bruno Cardoso Lopes via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Attempt to fix in r265630.
>
Did you ever fix PATH_MAX?
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Bruno Cardoso Lopes <
> bruno.card...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Hans, taking a look!
>>
>> O
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Bruno Cardoso Lopes via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author: bruno
> Date: Wed Mar 16 21:20:43 2016
> New Revision: 263686
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=263686&view=rev
> Log:
> Reapply [2]: [VFS] Add support for handling pa
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Sean Silva wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Bruno Cardoso Lopes via cfe-commits <
> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Attempt to fix in r265630.
>>
>
> Did you ever fix PATH_MAX?
>
I've fixed it in r265634.
-- Sean Silva
>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 6,
Author: silvas
Date: Wed Apr 6 20:58:14 2016
New Revision: 265634
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=265634&view=rev
Log:
Don't use PATH_MAX.
This is a SmallVector anyway, and so the exact size doesn't matter.
clang\lib\Frontend\ModuleDependencyCollector.cpp(83) : error C2065: 'PATH_M
LegalizeAdulthood added a subscriber: LegalizeAdulthood.
LegalizeAdulthood added a comment.
That we've had to fix this twice now tells me that our collective memory is
forgetful :).
We need to collect the community wisdom for `clang-tidy` gotchas somewhere in
the docs...
http://reviews.llvm.o
etienneb added a comment.
There are probably other instances of this error.
It's not an instance that got incorrectly fixed.
I may review other checkers to see if I can find more of them.
For now, I'm fixing them when they make clang-tidy crash over chromium code
(with a clang-tidy windows buil
Didn't notice that yield an error, thanks again Sean!
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Sean Silva wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Sean Silva wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Bruno Cardoso Lopes via cfe-commits <
>> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Attempt t
Sure, I'll tackle this soon!
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Sean Silva wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Bruno Cardoso Lopes via cfe-commits <
> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Author: bruno
>> Date: Wed Mar 16 21:20:43 2016
>> New Revision: 263686
>>
>> URL: http://llvm.org
Author: compnerd
Date: Thu Apr 7 00:41:11 2016
New Revision: 265640
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=265640&view=rev
Log:
Basic: thread CodeGenOptions into TargetInfo
This threads CodeGenOptions into the TargetInfo hierarchy. This is motivated by
ARM which can change some target inf
ariccio added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D18073#393613, @zaks.anna wrote:
> You will have to add one test function to smoke test that the newly added API
> is modeled correctly.
Isn't that what I've already done?
> We also have a lot of existing tests that verify that each of the o
101 - 115 of 115 matches
Mail list logo