Hi all,
I made fix in clang's python bindings. The binding for C api's
clang_getIncludedFile was not implemented. The patch was made on trunk.
I believe this bugticket is related: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15223
Any thoughts?
József Láz
This message, i
svenvh created this revision.
svenvh added a reviewer: rivanvx.
Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
Generate a printable OpenCL language version number in a single place
and select between the OpenCL C or OpenCL C++ version accordingly.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46382
jlaz created this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
adding function: `Cursor.get_included_file` , so the C API's
`clang_getIncludedFile` function is available on the python binding interface
also adding test to unittests
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46383
F
Author: prazek
Date: Thu May 3 04:03:01 2018
New Revision: 331448
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=331448&view=rev
Log:
Rename invariant.group.barrier to launder.invariant.group
Summary:
This is one of the initial commit of "RFC: Devirtualization v2" proposal:
https://docs.google.com
baloghadamsoftware updated this revision to Diff 144999.
baloghadamsoftware added a comment.
Rebased.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32905
Files:
lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/IteratorChecker.cpp
test/Analysis/Inputs/system-header-simulator-cxx.h
test/Analysis/iterator-range.cpp
Index: test/Ana
Anastasia updated this revision to Diff 145000.
Anastasia added a comment.
- Changed to adjust common function
- Enhanced CodeGen string literal case to also check the predefined expr
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46049
Files:
include/clang/AST/ASTContext.h
lib/AST/ASTContext.cpp
lib/AST/Expr
a.sidorin updated this revision to Diff 144998.
a.sidorin retitled this revision from "[analyzer] ExprEngine: model GCC inline
asm rvalue cast outputs" to "[AST, analyzer] Transform rvalue cast outputs to
lvalues (fheinous-gnu-extensions)".
a.sidorin edited the summary of this revision.
a.sidorin
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 1:25 AM, 朴素 <772847...@qq.com> wrote:
> hi, Aaron
>
> The reason why i not use of TargetSpecificAttr is as follows.If I plan to
> support a new platform, I don't want to let users use certain attributes
> because of hardware or simply not want to. Yes, we can use
> TargetSp
aaron.ballman added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45702#1085890, @shuaiwang wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45702#1085224, @aaron.ballman wrote:
>
> > > Have you run this over any large code bases to see whether the check
> > > triggers in practice?
> >
> > I'm still curious abou
sdardis accepted this revision.
sdardis added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Herald added a subscriber: chrib.
Sorry for the delay.
LGTM.
Repository:
rUNW libunwind
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41968
___
cfe-commits mai
tzik created this revision.
tzik added a reviewer: thakis.
Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, christof.
This is a follow-up change to r331150. The CL moved the macro from individual
file to build file, but the macro is missed in a test config file.
Repository:
rCXXA libc++abi
https://revi
Thanks.
-- --
??: "Aaron Ballman";
: 2018??5??3??(??) 7:40
??: ""<772847...@qq.com>;
: "cfe-commits";
: Re: If I want to disable certain attributes, such as"swiftcall",isthere
any way to do it now?
On Thu, May 3,
Author: lliu0
Date: Wed May 2 18:43:23 2018
New Revision: 331424
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=331424&view=rev
Log:
[Sema] Do not match function type with const T in template argument deduction
From http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#1584,
function type sh
Author: karka
Date: Wed May 2 22:53:29 2018
New Revision: 331438
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=331438&view=rev
Log:
Fix -Wunused-variable warning in Clang.cpp
Modified:
cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp
Modified: cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp
URL:
http://
This patch looks good to me - great work!
If you can upload it to https://reviews.llvm.org
then I can review and merge it for you once it's approved.
regards,
Jon
On 3 May 2018 at 08:55, József LÁZ via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I made fix in clang’s python
Author: nico
Date: Thu May 3 05:44:27 2018
New Revision: 331450
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=331450&view=rev
Log:
Fix test failure for missing _LIBCPP_ENABLE_CXX17_REMOVED_UNEXPECTED_FUNCTIONS
This is a follow-up change to r331150. The CL moved the macro from individual
file to b
thakis closed this revision.
thakis added a comment.
r331450, thanks!
Repository:
rCXXA libc++abi
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46385
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
delena created this revision.
delena added reviewers: igorb, t.p.northover, ABataev, jfb, rjmccall.
Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, Anastasia.
Added __atomic_fetch_min, max, umin, umax intrinsics to clang.
These intrinsics work exactly as all other __atomic_fetch_* intrinsics and
allow to
r331450 should hopefully fix this.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Nico Weber wrote:
> tzik, can you take a look what's up on those bots?
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2018, 5:48 AM Maxim Kuvyrkov
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Nico,
>>
>> This broke armv7 and aarch64 bots:
>> - http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/libcxx
ABataev accepted this revision.
ABataev added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LG
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46370
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-c
alexfh added a comment.
As Devin says (and as we discussed this with Anna Zaks) alpha checkers are
still in development, so we don't want to expose them to the users, even very
curious ones. For those who want to help with development of the alpha
checkers, there's always a possibility to chang
baloghadamsoftware updated this revision to Diff 145008.
baloghadamsoftware added a comment.
Rebased, and minor modifications done according to the comments.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32906
Files:
lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/IteratorChecker.cpp
test/Analysis/iterator-range.cpp
test/Analys
lebedev.ri added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159#1086322, @alexfh wrote:
>
How about `-enable-alpha-checks=yes-i-know-they-are-broken` ?
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159
___
cfe-commits mailing l
sammccall updated this revision to Diff 145011.
sammccall added a comment.
Add completion test.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46183
Files:
clangd/CodeComplete.cpp
clangd/index/Index.cpp
clangd/index/Index.h
clangd/index/MemIndex.cpp
unittests/clangd/C
sammccall added a comment.
Added a test - it's kind of perfunctory, I really want to organize symbol
scoring more thoroughly which will provide a better place to test well.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46183
___
c
a.sidorin added a comment.
Hello Gabor,
Thank you for the patch. It looks mostly good, but I have a question: should we
add this new declaration to the redeclaration chain like we do it for
RecordDecls?
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46353
___
a.sidorin added a comment.
Hi Rafael,
Could you please show the AST we get with `getDecomposedExpansionLoc()`? This
change can be an item for a separate patch.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26054
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
a.sidorin added a comment.
Hello Peter! This looks almost OK, just some minor formatting issues.
Comment at: unittests/AST/ASTImporterTest.cpp:1509
+ MatchVerifier Verifier;
+ testImport("template struct S {static T foo;};"
+ "template void declToImport() {"
r.stahl added a comment.
It puts everything at the start of the marco expansion.
`-FunctionDecl 0x12f5218 prev 0x12f4fa0 line:12:5 used
foo 'int ()'
`-CompoundStmt 0x12f5600
|-DeclStmt 0x12f5508
| `-VarDecl 0x12f5470 col:15 used s 'struct S *' cinit
| `-ImplicitCast
MTC updated this revision to Diff 145019.
MTC added a comment.
- fix typos
- code refactoring, add auxiliary method `memsetAux()`
- according to a.sidorin's suggestions, remove the useless state splitting.
- make `StoreManager::overwriteRegion()` pure virtual
Repository:
rC Clang
https://revi
Author: alexfh
Date: Thu May 3 07:40:37 2018
New Revision: 331456
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=331456&view=rev
Log:
[clang-tidy] Remove AnalyzeTemporaryDtors option.
Remove the `AnalyzeTemporaryDtors` option, since the corresponding
`cfg-temporary-dtors` option of the Static Anal
sammccall updated this revision to Diff 145021.
sammccall added a comment.
Fix tests.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46183
Files:
clangd/CodeComplete.cpp
clangd/index/Index.cpp
clangd/index/Index.h
clangd/index/MemIndex.cpp
unittests/clangd/CodeComplet
alexfh created this revision.
alexfh added a reviewer: NoQ.
Remove explicit -analyzer-config cfg-temporary-dtors=true in analyzer tests,
since this option defaults to true since r326461.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46393
Files:
test/Analysis/cfg-rich-constructors.cpp
t
ilya-biryukov accepted this revision.
ilya-biryukov added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46183
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
martong added a comment.
> should we add this new declaration to the redeclaration chain like we do it
> for RecordDecls?
I think, on a long term we should. Otherwise we could loose e.g. C++11
attributes which are attached to the forward declaration only.
However, I'd do that as a separate comm
pfultz2 added a comment.
> As Devin says (and as we discussed this with Anna Zaks) alpha checkers are
> still in development, so we don't want to expose them to the users, even very
> curious ones.
Then why do we make them available with `clang --analyze`? If the plan is not
to expose them to
alexfh requested changes to this revision.
alexfh added inline comments.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Comment at: clang-tidy/ClangTidy.cpp:373-376
// FIXME: Remove this option once clang's cfg-temporary-dtors option defaults
// to true.
AnalyzerOptions-
Author: sammccall
Date: Thu May 3 07:53:02 2018
New Revision: 331457
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=331457&view=rev
Log:
[clangd] Incorporate #occurrences in scoring code complete results.
Summary: needs tests
Reviewers: ilya-biryukov
Subscribers: klimek, ioeric, MaskRay, jkorous
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rCTE331457: [clangd] Incorporate #occurrences in scoring code
complete results. (authored by sammccall, committed by ).
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46183?vs=145021&id=145024#toc
Re
pfultz2 added inline comments.
Comment at: clang-tidy/ClangTidy.cpp:373-376
// FIXME: Remove this option once clang's cfg-temporary-dtors option defaults
// to true.
AnalyzerOptions->Config["cfg-temporary-dtors"] =
Context.getOptions().AnalyzeTemporaryDtors ? "tru
alexfh added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159#1086332, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159#1086322, @alexfh wrote:
>
> >
>
>
> How about `-enable-alpha-checks=yes-i-know-they-are-broken` ?
A hidden flag with a scary name without any way to specify it in .clang-t
lebedev.ri added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159#1086463, @pfultz2 wrote:
> > As Devin says (and as we discussed this with Anna Zaks) alpha checkers are
> > still in development, so we don't want to expose them to the users, even
> > very curious ones.
>
> Then why do we make them
pfultz2 added a comment.
> But still, could you explain the use case and why a local modification of
> clang-tidy is not an option?
Because I would like to direct users to try an alpha check on thier local
codebases without having to tell them to rebuild clang.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools
benhamilton requested changes to this revision.
benhamilton added inline comments.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Comment at: clang-tidy/objc/PropertyDeclarationCheck.cpp:222
+ [MatchedDecl](std::string const &s) {
+return s ==
alexfh added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159#1086479, @pfultz2 wrote:
> > But still, could you explain the use case and why a local modification of
> > clang-tidy is not an option?
>
> Because I would like to direct users to try an alpha check on their local
> codebases without ha
alexfh added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159#1086487, @alexfh wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159#1086479, @pfultz2 wrote:
>
> > > But still, could you explain the use case and why a local modification of
> > > clang-tidy is not an option?
> >
> > Because I would like to di
aaron.ballman added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159#1086472, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159#1086463, @pfultz2 wrote:
>
> > > As Devin says (and as we discussed this with Anna Zaks) alpha checkers
> > > are still in development, so we don't want to expose th
fxb created this revision.
fxb added reviewers: hans, erichkeane, thakis.
Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
This replicates 'cl.exe' behavior and allows for both preprocessor output and
dependency information to be extraced with a single compiler invocation.
This is especially useful for co
fxb added a comment.
This is my first patch to clang, so any feedback regarding implementation
appreciated!
Also, let me know if you have any suggestions on how to add more extensive
tests for this.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46394
___
xbolva00 added inline comments.
Comment at: clang-tidy/tool/ClangTidyMain.cpp:195
+/// This option Enables alpha checkers from the static analyzer, that are
+/// experimental. This option is set to false and not visible in help, because
This option enables...
Author: aaronballman
Date: Thu May 3 08:33:50 2018
New Revision: 331459
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=331459&view=rev
Log:
Allow writing calling convention attributes on function types.
Calling convention attributes notionally appertain to the function type -- they
modify the man
aaron.ballman closed this revision.
aaron.ballman added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43750#1085780, @rsmith wrote:
> I'm really sad about this; C++11 attributes were supposed to fix the
> undisciplined "do what I mean" behavior of GNU attributes. But you're right,
> these really are
erichkeane added inline comments.
Comment at: include/clang/Frontend/DependencyOutputOptions.h:31
unsigned AddMissingHeaderDeps : 1; ///< Add missing headers to dependency
list
unsigned PrintShowIncludes : 1; ///< Print cl.exe style /showIncludes info.
+ unsigned
fxb added inline comments.
Comment at: include/clang/Frontend/DependencyOutputOptions.h:31
unsigned AddMissingHeaderDeps : 1; ///< Add missing headers to dependency
list
unsigned PrintShowIncludes : 1; ///< Print cl.exe style /showIncludes info.
+ unsigned
---
alexfh requested changes to this revision.
alexfh added inline comments.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize-use-auto-min-type-name-length.cpp:61-83
+long int li = static_cast(foo());
+// CHECK-FIXES-0-0: auto li = {{.*}}
+/
alexfh requested changes to this revision.
alexfh added inline comments.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Comment at: clang-tidy/ClangTidy.cpp:536
+ DiagnosticConsumer *DiagConsumer) override {
+ Invocation->getFrontendOpts().ProgramAction
pfultz2 added a comment.
> I think the premise is a bit off the mark. It's not that these are not for
> the common user -- it's that they're simply not ready for users at all.
Then why was it merged into clang in the first place? It seems like the whole
point of merging it into clang is to get
xbolva00 added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159#1086553, @pfultz2 wrote:
> > I think the premise is a bit off the mark. It's not that these are not for
> > the common user -- it's that they're simply not ready for users at all.
>
> Then why was it merged into clang in the first plac
Author: alexfh
Date: Thu May 3 08:59:39 2018
New Revision: 331460
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=331460&view=rev
Log:
Add a trailing period in release notes.
Modified:
clang-tools-extra/trunk/clang-tidy/add_new_check.py
Modified: clang-tools-extra/trunk/clang-tidy/add_new_chec
Author: alexfh
Date: Thu May 3 09:01:49 2018
New Revision: 331461
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=331461&view=rev
Log:
Added trailing periods.
Modified:
clang-tools-extra/trunk/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
Modified: clang-tools-extra/trunk/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst
URL:
http://llvm.org/v
r.stahl added a comment.
Maybe this is a user error of CrossTU, but it seemed to import a FuncDecl with
attributes, causing the imported FuncDecl to have all those attributes twice.
That's why I thought merging would maybe make sense. However I did not
encounter any issue with the duplicate att
alexfh requested changes to this revision.
alexfh added inline comments.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Comment at: clang-tidy/bugprone/InfiniteLoopCheck.h:37
+private:
+ bool updateSequence(Stmt *FunctionBody, ASTContext &ASTCtx);
+ const Stmt *PrevFunctionBody
saugustine added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D36610#1083952, @mikhail.ramalho wrote:
> Ping.
Given that richard smith is the only non-approver, and that he hasn't
responded, and that I contributed this code, I'm going to make an executive
decision and say that this is OK to submit.
alexfh requested changes to this revision.
alexfh added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
There are still outstanding comments.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33844
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://li
pfultz2 updated this revision to Diff 145029.
pfultz2 added a comment.
Rename flag to `allow-enabling-alpha-checks` and removed the option from the
clang-tidy file.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159
Files:
clang-tidy/ClangTidy.cpp
clang-tidy/ClangTidyOptions.cpp
clang-tidy/ClangTidyOptions
alexfh requested changes to this revision.
alexfh added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
It looks like you've missed some comments or uploaded a wrong patch.
Comment at: clang-tidy/bugprone/ExceptionEscapeCheck.cpp:105
+const TypeVec throwsException(con
aaron.ballman added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159#1086553, @pfultz2 wrote:
> > I think the premise is a bit off the mark. It's not that these are not for
> > the common user -- it's that they're simply not ready for users at all.
>
> Then why was it merged into clang in the first
fxb updated this revision to Diff 145030.
fxb added a comment.
Updated the code to use an enum called `ShowIncludesDestination`
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46394
Files:
include/clang/Frontend/DependencyOutputOptions.h
lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp
lib/Frontend/CompilerInstance.cpp
lib/F
erichkeane accepted this revision.
erichkeane added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
This looks fine to me. Let me know if you need me to commit this for you.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46394
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cf
fxb added a comment.
@erichkeane That would be great! Thanks!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46394
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
pfultz2 added a comment.
> When something is merged into Clang trunk, the expectation is that it will be
> production quality or will be worked on rapidly to get it to production
> quality, which is somewhat orthogonal to getting user feedback. I don't know
> that I have the full history of all
lebedev.ri added inline comments.
Comment at: clang-tidy/tool/ClangTidyMain.cpp:195
+/// This option Enables alpha checkers from the static analyzer, that are
+/// experimental. This option is set to false and not visible in help, because
xbolva00 wrote:
> This
a.sidorin added a comment.
I see,t hank you. Please feel free to submit a patch - it seems like you
already have a nice test case that shows the difference between two import
options.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26054
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cf
xbolva00 added inline comments.
Comment at: clang-tidy/tool/ClangTidyMain.cpp:195
+/// This option Enables alpha checkers from the static analyzer, that are
+/// experimental. This option is set to false and not visible in help, because
lebedev.ri wrote:
> xbol
alexfh requested changes to this revision.
alexfh added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159#1086493, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> I think the premise is a bit off the mark. It's not that these are not for
> the common user -- it's that they're
alexfh added a comment.
What's the use case for debug CSA checkers in clang-tidy?
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46187
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-comm
alexfh added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45931#1084503, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45931#1083192, @lebedev.ri wrote:
>
> > Thank you for looking at this.
> >
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45931#1083184, @alexfh wrote:
> >
> > > From a user's perspective I'd p
chill added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46013#1084440, @efriedma wrote:
> I'd like to see some tests for __attribute((packed)).
Thanks, indeed it does not work correctly on packed structures. Back to the
drawing board ...
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46013
Author: jdenny
Date: Thu May 3 10:15:44 2018
New Revision: 331466
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=331466&view=rev
Log:
[OPENMP] Fix test typos: CHECK-DAG-N -> CHECK-N-DAG
Modified:
cfe/trunk/test/OpenMP/target_teams_distribute_firstprivate_codegen.cpp
cfe/trunk/test/OpenMP/
erichkeane requested changes to this revision.
erichkeane added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
When building this, it didn't build since you'd reused the name. I changed the
variable to be named "Dest" instead of "Destination"
That said, the test suite now fails on Cl
Author: jdenny
Date: Thu May 3 10:22:04 2018
New Revision: 331469
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=331469&view=rev
Log:
[OPENMP] Fix test typos: CHECK-DAG-N -> CHECK-N-DAG
Reviewed by: ABataev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46370
Modified:
cfe/trunk/test/OpenM
Author: jdenny
Date: Thu May 3 10:22:01 2018
New Revision: 331468
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=331468&view=rev
Log:
Revert r331466: [OPENMP] Fix test typos: CHECK-DAG-N -> CHECK-N-DAG"
Sorry, forgot to add commit log attributes.
Modified:
cfe/trunk/test/OpenMP/target_teams_d
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rC331469: [OPENMP] Fix test typos: CHECK-DAG-N ->
CHECK-N-DAG (authored by jdenny, committed by ).
Changed prior to commit:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46370?vs=144949&id=145047#toc
Repository:
rC Clang
sepavloff updated this revision to Diff 145049.
sepavloff marked an inline comment as done.
sepavloff added a comment.
Small simplification
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46241
Files:
lib/CodeGen/CGExprConstant.cpp
test/CodeGenCXX/cxx11-initializer-aggregate.cpp
Index:
aaron.ballman added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159#1086627, @alexfh wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D46159#1086493, @aaron.ballman wrote:
>
> > I think the premise is a bit off the mark. It's not that these are not for
> > the common user -- it's that they're simply not ready
fxb added a comment.
I'll have a look at these issues tomorrow and submit a new patch then.
Thanks for all your help so far!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46394
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailm
sepavloff marked an inline comment as done.
sepavloff added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGExprConstant.cpp:1403
+ if (auto *IL = dyn_cast_or_null(Init)) {
+if (InitTy->isConstantArrayType()) {
+ for (auto I : IL->inits())
rjmccall wrote:
>
a.sidorin created this revision.
a.sidorin added reviewers: xazax.hun, martong, szepet, jingham.
Herald added subscribers: cfe-commits, rnkovacs.
`buildASTFromCodeWithArgs()` accepts `llvm::Twine` as `Code` argument. However,
if the argument is not a C string or std::string, the argument is being
lebedev.ri added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45931#1086665, @alexfh wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45931#1084503, @lebedev.ri wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45931#1083192, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you for looking at this.
> > >
> > > In https://reviews.llvm
zinovy.nis updated this revision to Diff 145059.
zinovy.nis added a comment.
- Added comments on why setting `ProgramAction` explicitly.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46325
Files:
clang-tidy/ClangTidy.cpp
test/clang-tidy/clang-tidy-__clang_analyzer__macro.cpp
Index: test/clang-tidy/clang-tidy
alexfh accepted this revision.
alexfh added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LG. Thank you!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46325
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/list
zinovy.nis added a comment.
Thanks Alexander for your feedback!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D46325
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
shuaiwang added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45702#1086250, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45702#1085890, @shuaiwang wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45702#1085224, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> >
> > > > Have you run this over any large code bases to see wheth
Author: zinovy.nis
Date: Thu May 3 11:26:39 2018
New Revision: 331474
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=331474&view=rev
Log:
[clang-tidy] Define __clang_analyzer__ macro for clang-tidy for compatibility
with clang static analyzer
This macro is widely used in many well-known projects,
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL331474: [clang-tidy] Define __clang_analyzer__ macro for
clang-tidy for compatibility… (authored by zinovy.nis, committed by ).
Herald added subscribers: llvm-commits, klimek.
Changed prior to commit:
h
Author: zinovy.nis
Date: Thu May 3 11:31:39 2018
New Revision: 331475
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=331475&view=rev
Log:
Simplify test clang-tidy-__clang_analyzer__macro.cpp
Modified:
clang-tools-extra/trunk/test/clang-tidy/clang-tidy-__clang_analyzer__macro.cpp
Modified:
ahatanak added a comment.
> Note that this sort of attribute is stripped from template arguments in
> template substitution, so there's a possibility that code templated over
> vectors will produce inadequately-aligned objects.
I was wondering whether there is a warning clang issues when the al
jfb added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaChecking.cpp:3098
+ case AtomicExpr::AO__atomic_fetch_umax:
+IsMinMax = true;
+Form = Arithmetic;
Should `__sync_fetch_and_min` and others also set `IsMinMax`?
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.
rjmccall added a comment.
I think we should seriously consider making alignment attributes on typedefs
(and maybe some other attributes like may_alias) actual type qualifiers that
are preserved in the canonical type, mangled, and so on. It would be an ABI
break, but it'd also solve a lot of pr
cmtice created this revision.
cmtice added a reviewer: pcc.
Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
Currently LLVM CFI tries to use an implicit blacklist file, currently in
/usr/lib64/clang//share. If the file is not there, LLVM happily
continues, which causes CFI to add checks to files/functio
1 - 100 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
