lichray added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D38216#923580, @rsmith wrote:
> That's almost right, but not all `extern` declarations are disallowed. (An
> `extern` declaration is still a defining declaration if it has an
> initializer.)
Good to know, thanks.
So gcc got this wrong?
ht
Author: arphaman
Date: Mon Nov 13 17:46:24 2017
New Revision: 318129
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=318129&view=rev
Log:
[completion] complete ObjC interface names in an expression
Objective-C interfaces can be used in a class property expression.
rdar://26982192
Modified:
cfe
Author: chandlerc
Date: Mon Nov 13 17:47:24 2017
New Revision: 318130
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=318130&view=rev
Log:
[PM] Add a missing header that I had in the next commit but was needed
in r318128. Should fix the build.
Modified:
cfe/trunk/lib/CodeGen/BackendUtil.cpp
Mod
dmajor created this revision.
Herald added subscribers: kristof.beyls, aemerson.
Mozilla's build machines are currently applying this patch locally, but I
thought I'd offer it upstream because it should be pretty harmless.
clang-cl has some sanity checks to make sure that the cl.exe it finds is
Author: chandlerc
Date: Mon Nov 13 17:59:18 2017
New Revision: 318131
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=318131&view=rev
Log:
[PM] Wire up support for the bounds checking sanitizer with the new PM.
Not much interesting here. Mostly wiring things together.
One thing worth noting is that
ahatanak added a comment.
Is it not necessary to print a diagnostic when a non-member function
declaration is missing an availability attribute?
void foo1();
__attribute__((availability(macos, introduced=10.1)))
void foo1() {
}
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D39913
Author: chandlerc
Date: Mon Nov 13 21:20:03 2017
New Revision: 318137
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=318137&view=rev
Log:
[PM] Require a registered x86 target for this test which uses the x86
triple.
Modified:
cfe/trunk/test/CodeGen/bounds-checking.c
Modified: cfe/trunk/test/Co
rjmccall added a comment.
We don't want this to become a long-term feature; we just want to switch the
implementation over to the new format. Is there a good reason not to do that
in one patch? If so, adding an option is acceptable, but it should be a -cc1
option only, because it is purely a
rjmccall added inline comments.
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/TargetInfo.h:944
+ /// \brief Whether target supports variable-length arrays.
+ bool isVLASupported() const { return VLASupported; }
+
Hahnfeld wrote:
> rjmccall wrote:
> > ABataev wrote:
> > > ABa
101 - 109 of 109 matches
Mail list logo