=?utf-8?b?0JfQuNGI0LDQvSDQnNC40YDQtw==?=,
=?utf-8?b?0JfQuNGI0LDQvSDQnNC40YDQtw==?=,
=?utf-8?b?0JfQuNGI0LDQvSDQnNC40YDQtw==?=,
=?utf-8?b?0JfQuNGI0LDQvSDQnNC40YDQtw==?=,
=?utf-8?b?0JfQuNGI0LDQvSDQnNC40YDQtw==?=,
=?utf-8?b?0JfQuNGI0LDQvSDQnNC40YDQtw==?=,
=?utf-8?b?0JfQuNGI0LDQvSDQnNC40YDQtw==?=,
=?utf
=?utf-8?b?0JfQuNGI0LDQvSDQnNC40YDQtw=?=,
=?utf-8?b?0JfQuNGI0LDQvSDQnNC40YDQtw=?=,
=?utf-8?b?0JfQuNGI0LDQvSDQnNC40YDQtw=?=,
=?utf-8?b?0JfQuNGI0LDQvSDQnNC40YDQtw=?=,
=?utf-8?b?0JfQuNGI0LDQvSDQnNC40YDQtw=?=,
=?utf-8?b?0JfQuNGI0LDQvSDQnNC40YDQtw=?=,
=?utf-8?b?0JfQuNGI0LDQvSDQnNC40YDQtw=?=,
=?utf-8?b?0J
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `clang-ppc64-aix` running
on `aix-ppc64` while building `clang` at step 3 "clean-build-dir".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/64/builds/1883
Here is the relevant piece of the build log f
goldsteinn wrote:
> Checking again and am still considering this patch too spesific/incomplete,
> checking vc's diff calls to git - they are considerably more involved than in
> this PR, meaning this PR will likely require follow up commits to fix
> problems _(see `vc-diff-internal`, inlined b
Author: Hervé Poussineau
Date: 2025-01-05T15:20:16+08:00
New Revision: 8267bea9a35c3c3f866b942a50c2b98ac462ce35
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/8267bea9a35c3c3f866b942a50c2b98ac462ce35
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/8267bea9a35c3c3f866b942a50c2b98ac462ce35.di
https://github.com/wzssyqa closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/121042
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/owenca created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/121681
The new line types help to annotate */&/&& in simple requirements as binary
operators.
Fixes #121675.
>From bdf0c2e2a9fd78368137e441cc4cad33702fbdc7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Owen Pan
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 202
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-format
Author: Owen Pan (owenca)
Changes
The new line types help to annotate */&/&& in simple requirements
as binary operators.
Fixes #121675.
---
Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/121681.diff
3 Files Affected:
- (modified)
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Vlad Serebrennikov (Endilll)
Changes
This patch adds a rather simple test for
[CWG192](https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/192.html). Parameter
declarations of member functions are not complete-class contexts (unlike
default arguments
https://github.com/Endilll created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/121679
This patch adds a rather simple test for
[CWG192](https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/192.html). Parameter
declarations of member functions are not complete-class contexts (unlike
default arguments), so the
leijurv wrote:
Ping :pray:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/118046
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
xtexChooser wrote:
what you said is also a problem. maybe we should print both raw path and
resolved path?
If the path is not resolved, Make and Ninja will canonicalize these paths
without resolving directory symbolic-links in the path, which may lead to a
broken path.
As the example I have g
phoebewang wrote:
> So, my preference is to keep this as is, and allow folks familiar with the
> specific builtins to merge groups together that make logical sense in
> follow-up PRs. Would that work for folks to at least get us out from using
> the X-macros?
Agreed! Can you share the script
@@ -108,9 +109,15 @@ class PrototypeParser {
} else if (T.consume_back("&")) {
ParseType(T);
Type += "&";
+} else if (T.consume_front("long long")) {
phoebewang wrote:
How did you get this diff? I think it's useful for us to verify the corr
https://github.com/phoebewang approved this pull request.
LGTM.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/120831
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
chandlerc wrote:
I've put the script in a gist here:
https://gist.github.com/chandlerc/de807ea073beac351f87c660e1d4b7a0
X-macros: the `BUILTIN(...)` macro invocations in an included file, where the
includer defines those macros to a specific pattern.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_macro LLVM
rymiel wrote:
This is a good fix but I think it might not be addressing the whole issue. This
isn't a problem with just *compound-requirement*, it's the case for
*simple-requirement*s too.
This is valid:
```c++
template
concept Multiplicable = requires(T a, T b) { a * b; };
```
but clang-form
https://github.com/rymiel approved this pull request.
these tests are so inconsistent but I guess it's not that critical
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/121451
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi
https://github.com/Endilll created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/121654
This patch adds test for
[CWG156](https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/156.html). The most relevant
piece of current wording is
[[basic.lookup.unqual]/5](https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.lookup#unqual-5):
> An
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Vlad Serebrennikov (Endilll)
Changes
This patch adds test for
[CWG156](https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/156.html). The most relevant
piece of current wording is
[[basic.lookup.unqual]/5](https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.lookup#unqual-
https://github.com/changkhothuychung updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/120920
error: too big or took too long to generate
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commit
https://github.com/mydeveloperday approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/121626
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/changkhothuychung updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/120920
error: too big or took too long to generate
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commit
https://github.com/mydeveloperday approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/121622
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/mydeveloperday approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/121539
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/mydeveloperday approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/121621
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `llvm-x86_64-debian-dylib`
running on `gribozavr4` while building `clang` at step 7
"test-build-unified-tree-check-llvm".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/60/builds/16227
Here is the re
101 - 127 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
