rmaprath updated this revision to Diff 54999.
rmaprath added a comment.
Minor cleanup + Gentle ping.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19412
Files:
include/__config
include/__mutex_base
include/__os_support
include/mutex
include/thread
src/algorithm.cpp
src/condition_variable.cpp
src/mem
rmaprath added a comment.
@mclow.lists, @EricWF: Any comments on this? If it helps, I could split off the
library source changes and test setup into two separate patches. I thought to
keep the two together as the test setup gives an idea of the overall objective.
Thanks.
/ Asiri
http://revie
rmaprath added a comment.
@jroelofs: OK to commit?
Thanks.
/ Asiri
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20119
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20119#436849, @jroelofs wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20119#431997, @rmaprath wrote:
>
> > Addressing review comments from @jroelofs:
> >
> > - Moved the assertion in `libunwind.cpp` back to `UnwindCursor.cpp` where
> > it really belog
rmaprath added a comment.
Couple of minor comments. LGTM otherwise.
/ Asiri
Comment at: CMakeLists.txt:387
@@ -386,2 +386,3 @@
+config_define_if(LIBCXX_HAS_PTHREAD_API _LIBCPP_HAS_THREAD_API_PTHREAD)
config_define_if(LIBCXX_HAS_MUSL_LIBC _LIBCPP_HAS_MUSL_LIBC)
--
rmaprath added inline comments.
Comment at: CMakeLists.txt:278
@@ -277,1 +277,3 @@
+if (LIBCXXABI_HAS_PTHREAD_API)
+ add_definitions(-D_LIBCPP_HAS_THREAD_API_PTHREAD)
Shouldn't there be an `option()` line for this new build option? Also a check
for compatibili
rmaprath added inline comments.
Comment at: include/__threading_support:201
@@ +200,3 @@
+// Mutex
+#define _LIBCPP_MUTEX_INITIALIZER nullptr
+struct __libcpp_platform_mutex_t;
bcraig wrote:
> I'm not sure I like taking the freedom to define _LIBCPP_MUTEX_INITIALI
rmaprath added inline comments.
Comment at: include/__threading_support:201
@@ +200,3 @@
+// Mutex
+#define _LIBCPP_MUTEX_INITIALIZER nullptr
+struct __libcpp_platform_mutex_t;
bcraig wrote:
> rmaprath wrote:
> > bcraig wrote:
> > > I'm not sure I like taking the
rmaprath added inline comments.
Comment at: include/__threading_support:201
@@ +200,3 @@
+// Mutex
+#define _LIBCPP_MUTEX_INITIALIZER nullptr
+struct __libcpp_platform_mutex_t;
bcraig wrote:
> rmaprath wrote:
> > bcraig wrote:
> > > rmaprath wrote:
> > > > bcraig
rmaprath accepted this revision.
rmaprath added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM.
(I don't have powers to accept libcxx patches in general, but this patch is
quite small and related to something I plugged in, so, I think it's OK in this
instance)
http://reviews
rmaprath accepted this revision.
rmaprath added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM.
(I don't have powers to accept libcxx patches in general, but this patch is
quite small and related to something I plugged in, so, I think it's OK in this
instance)
http://reviews
rmaprath added a subscriber: rmaprath.
rmaprath added a comment.
Looks like I've completely missed this patch somehow. Will try to find some
time (or someone) to have a look at it from an embedded-systems / ARM point of
view asap.
Great work!!!
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16948
__
Author: asiri
Date: Wed May 25 07:36:34 2016
New Revision: 270692
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=270692&view=rev
Log:
Introduce a native-only unwinder build.
Currently libunwind is built to support cross-unwinding [1] by default, which
requires the buffers unw_context_t and unw_curs
rmaprath added a comment.
Committed as r270692. But I forgot to mention this phab review in the commit
message. Sigh.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20119
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listi
rmaprath closed this revision.
rmaprath added a comment.
Accepted + closed. Patch committed as r270692.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20119
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
rmaprath added inline comments.
Comment at: include/__threading_support:201
@@ +200,3 @@
+// Mutex
+#define _LIBCPP_MUTEX_INITIALIZER nullptr
+struct __libcpp_platform_mutex_t;
rmaprath wrote:
> bcraig wrote:
> > rmaprath wrote:
> > > bcraig wrote:
> > > > rmaprat
rmaprath created this revision.
rmaprath added reviewers: bcraig, jroelofs, EricWF.
rmaprath added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
Support for building a -fno-exceptions libc++ variant was reinstated recently.
However, some of the standard library functions like `std::terminate()` are
currently sprea
rmaprath updated this revision to Diff 58620.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20677
Files:
CMakeLists.txt
src/cxa_aux_runtime.cpp
src/cxa_handlers.cpp
src/cxa_new_delete.cpp
src/cxa_personality.cpp
test/CMakeLists.txt
test/backtrace_test.pass.cpp
test/catch_array_01.pass.cpp
test/catch
rmaprath marked 2 inline comments as done.
Comment at: src/cxa_aux_runtime.cpp:19-20
@@ -18,3 +18,4 @@
extern "C" {
_LIBCXXABI_FUNC_VIS LIBCXXABI_NORETURN void __cxa_bad_cast(void) {
+#ifndef _LIBCXXABI_NO_EXCEPTIONS
throw std::bad_cast();
I'm not very famili
rmaprath marked an inline comment as done.
Comment at: src/cxa_aux_runtime.cpp:19-25
@@ -18,5 +18,9 @@
extern "C" {
_LIBCXXABI_FUNC_VIS LIBCXXABI_NORETURN void __cxa_bad_cast(void) {
+#ifndef _LIBCXXABI_NO_EXCEPTIONS
throw std::bad_cast();
+#else
+ std::terminate();
+#endif
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20677#441061, @jroelofs wrote:
> This is the canonical reference for the Itanium ABI:
> https://mentorembedded.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html
I was indeed looking at this, but couldn't find those exact function signatures
(or something that lo
rmaprath added a comment.
Looks like this patch breakes gcc builds of libunwind (none of the bots seem to
test it though).
The problem is two-fold, in `src/config.h` we have:
// Define static_assert() unless already defined by compiler.
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20119#441548, @jroelofs wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20119#441516, @rmaprath wrote:
>
> > Please shout!
>
>
> Just add some parens:
>
> static_assert((check_fit::does_fit),
> "or1k registers do not fit into unw_co
Author: asiri
Date: Thu May 26 16:45:54 2016
New Revision: 270925
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=270925&view=rev
Log:
Fix gcc libunwind build.
r270692 seems to have broken gcc builds of libunwind. This is because
statements like:
static_assert(check_fit::does_fit,
Author: asiri
Date: Thu May 26 16:56:04 2016
New Revision: 270927
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=270927&view=rev
Log:
Use size_t to store the results of sizeof calculations.
NFC.
Modified:
libunwind/trunk/src/config.h
Modified: libunwind/trunk/src/config.h
URL:
http://llvm.or
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20677#441407, @bcraig wrote:
> https://mentorembedded.github.io/cxx-abi/abi-eh.html mentions the functions,
> but it doesn't really say what they are for. The C++ standard mentions when
> an exception of std::bad_cast and std::bad_typeid ar
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20677#441598, @EricWF wrote:
> I want to take a look at this as well. I'll review it tomorrow.
Thanks! will wait until we have ironed out all the details, no hurry.
/ Asiri
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20677
___
Author: asiri
Date: Fri May 27 03:29:27 2016
New Revision: 270972
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=270972&view=rev
Log:
[libunwind] Disable cross-unwinding by default.
Cross unwinding requires larger sizes for unw_context_t and unw_cursor_t
buffers (large enough to hold the VRS of any
rmaprath created this revision.
rmaprath added a reviewer: EricWF.
rmaprath added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
We seem to have quite a few tests where an entire test is conditionalized over
some range of `_LIBCPP_STD_VER`. We should consider getting rid of these and
using the UNSUPPORTED lit direc
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20320#439368, @bcraig wrote:
> LGTM. You probably need to get an approval from someone else though, as I
> haven't really established myself in the libunwind code base.
>
> As a side note... one of these days clang / llvm stack compaction ma
Author: asiri
Date: Fri May 27 10:41:45 2016
New Revision: 271004
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=271004&view=rev
Log:
[libunwind] Improve unwinder stack usage - II
unwind_phase1 and unwind_phase2 allocate their own copies of unw_cursor_t
buffers
on the stack. This can blow-up stack
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20677#442559, @EricWF wrote:
> I have an issue with this change since it allows a libc++abi built without
> exceptions to be used in a program compiled with them. I assert that this
> should not be supported in any way.
>
> My personal prefe
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20677#442713, @EricWF wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20677#442687, @rmaprath wrote:
>
> > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20677#442559, @EricWF wrote:
> >
> > > I have an issue with this change since it allows a libc++abi built
> > > withou
rmaprath added a comment.
> I have a small concern about how difficult this would make things for us
> though - our toolchain setup uses `-ffunction-sections` and `-fdata-sections`
> along with linker's unused-section elimination to get rid of most of the
> stuff not necessary for the final i
rmaprath created this revision.
rmaprath added reviewers: EricWF, gribozavr, gkistanova, rengolin.
rmaprath added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
Herald added a subscriber: aemerson.
Currently, only the ARM libcxx builder seems to test libunwind
(`-DLIBCXXABI_USE_LLVM_UNWINDER=ON` cmake option).
This
rmaprath closed this revision.
rmaprath added a comment.
Thanks!
Committed as r271179.
Will be effective from the next buildmaster restart from @gkistanova.
/ Asiri
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20781
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llv
rmaprath created this revision.
rmaprath added reviewers: EricWF, mclow.lists.
rmaprath added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
This is a pre-requisite to address a review comment on D20677; The
`no-exceptions` variant of libcxxabi should not be allowed to be linked against
code that requires exception
rmaprath updated this revision to Diff 58927.
rmaprath added a comment.
OK, managed to solve this problem by removing `cxa_exception.cpp` and
`cxa_personality.cpp` from the no-exceptions libcxxabi build.
In order to do this, a small patch was needed for `exception.cpp` of libcxx:
http://reviews
rmaprath added inline comments.
Comment at: CMakeLists.txt:111
@@ -110,2 +110,3 @@
# Define options.
+option(LIBCXXABI_ENABLE_EXCEPTIONS "Use exceptions." OFF)
option(LIBCXXABI_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS "Enable assertions independent of build
mode." ON)
My bad, this sh
rmaprath updated this revision to Diff 58929.
rmaprath added a comment.
Fixed a few typos.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20677
Files:
CMakeLists.txt
src/CMakeLists.txt
src/cxa_aux_runtime.cpp
src/cxa_handlers.cpp
src/cxa_new_delete.cpp
test/CMakeLists.txt
test/backtrace_test.pass.cpp
rmaprath marked an inline comment as done.
rmaprath added a comment.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20677
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20784#443708, @EricWF wrote:
> I don't like the direction of this patch, and it seems like the wrong
> direction for what your trying to achieve as well.
> If your trying to support a system with two variants of libc++abi, one that
> throws
rmaprath updated this revision to Diff 59000.
rmaprath added a comment.
Addressing review comments from @EricWF:
- Rather than explicitly decoupling the no-exceptions `libc++` library from the
`__cxa_*` routines (http://reviews.llvm.org/D20784), provide a placeholder
implementation of those fun
rmaprath abandoned this revision.
rmaprath added a comment.
Updated http://reviews.llvm.org/D20677 with the necessary changes. This patch
is no longer required.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20784
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
rmaprath updated this revision to Diff 59009.
rmaprath added a comment.
Addressed review comments from @EricWF:
- Addressed the nits
- Disabled `backtrace_test.pass.cpp` for the moment, need to check if using
`_Unwind_backtrace` with no unwinding tables (-fno-exceptions) makes sense
- Enabled a
rmaprath marked 6 inline comments as done.
rmaprath added a comment.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20677
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
rmaprath added a comment.
I'm seeing a few failures on my Fedora 20 system. Will go through these
tomorrow.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16948
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-co
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16948#443942, @EricWF wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16948#443941, @rmaprath wrote:
>
> > I'm seeing a few failures on my Fedora 20 system. Will go through these
> > tomorrow.
>
>
> If you want to just send me the raw ouput I'll go over
rmaprath added a comment.
Thanks Eric.
I think I noted a few other `assert(true)` statements elsewhere (with similar
application), will update those separately.
Btw, do you use some systematic way to detect ABI breakages? I've only bumped
into http://lvc.github.io/abi-compliance-checker/ but d
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16948#443999, @EricWF wrote:
> I installed a Fedora 23 system and ran the test suite and I didn't see any of
> the same failures. It must be something other than the distro.
> Are you using an odd filesystem? Or maybe it could be your system
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16948#444006, @rmaprath wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16948#443999, @EricWF wrote:
>
> > I installed a Fedora 23 system and ran the test suite and I didn't see any
> > of the same failures. It must be something other than the distro.
>
rmaprath added a comment.
Would you / community be open to the idea of hiding the os syscalls behind an
API? (like we are doing for pthreads)?
I think this is the only way we could get at least some of this functionality
working on bare-metal ARM (it should work on arm-linux without much troubl
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16948#444010, @EricWF wrote:
> Ah I figured it out! The test suite has symlinks within it. Git handles them
> properly but they obviously don't survive the round trip to phabricator and
> back. So all of the tests that depend on them fail (w
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16948#444013, @EricWF wrote:
> The git branch I develop on is public:
> https://github.com/efcs/libcxx/tree/filesystem-ts
>
> You can download or clone from there (and it will always be up to date!).
All tests pass! :-)
I'll try to find an
Author: asiri
Date: Tue May 31 07:01:32 2016
New Revision: 271267
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=271267&view=rev
Log:
[libcxxabi] Introduce a -fno-exceptions libc++abi libary variant
Currently there is only support for a -fno-exceptions libc++ build. This is
problematic for function
rmaprath added a subscriber: rmaprath.
rmaprath added a comment.
Hmmm, it looks like part of this patch didn't go in? I cannot see the changes
in the `libcxxab/CMakeLists.txt` file in the repo.
I was hoping this would enable me to run the `libc++abi` tests on in-tree
static builds, but I still
rmaprath added a comment.
Works great. Thanks!
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16545
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
rmaprath created this revision.
rmaprath added reviewers: EricWF, bcraig, mclow.lists.
rmaprath added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
Bumped into these while working on the externally threaded variant. I think it
makes most sense to group these two under the main threading API. This greatly
simplifie
Author: asiri
Date: Wed Jun 1 14:13:53 2016
New Revision: 271423
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=271423&view=rev
Log:
[libcxxabi][test] Add missing return statement.
This causes a test failure when running with -Werror=return-type.
NFC.
Modified:
libcxxabi/trunk/test/cxa_bad_t
rmaprath updated this revision to Diff 59363.
rmaprath added a comment.
Addressed review comments from @bcraig.
@EricWF: Gentle ping.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20328
Files:
CMakeLists.txt
include/__config
include/__config_site.in
include/__dynamic_threading
include/__threading_support
rmaprath created this revision.
rmaprath added a reviewer: EricWF.
rmaprath added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
After r271475 [1], I'm seeing a segfault in `join.pass.cpp` on my system.
The test calls `std::thread::join()` twice and expects it to throw a
system_error. It looks like my pthread imple
rmaprath added a comment.
Will commit tomorrow if there are no objections.
Feel free to commit if it looks all right.
/ Asiri
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20929
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mail
Author: asiri
Date: Fri Jun 3 03:45:26 2016
New Revision: 271634
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=271634&view=rev
Log:
[libcxx] Fix thread join.pass.cpp segfault after r271475
Some pthread implementations do not like being called pthead_join()
with the pthread_t argument set to 0, an
rmaprath closed this revision.
rmaprath added a comment.
Thanks. Fixed in r271634.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20929
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
rmaprath updated this revision to Diff 59507.
rmaprath added a comment.
Added a comment about `~std::thread()` hook.
@EricWF: Gentle ping.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20874
Files:
include/__threading_support
src/thread.cpp
Index: src/thread.cpp
===
rmaprath updated this revision to Diff 59519.
rmaprath added a comment.
Added a comment about `__static_threading` and `__dynamic_threading` header
includes.
@EricWF: Ping (sorry).
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20328
Files:
CMakeLists.txt
include/__config
include/__config_site.in
include/_
Author: asiri
Date: Fri Jun 3 15:57:48 2016
New Revision: 271737
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=271737&view=rev
Log:
[libunwind] Remove unused code.
The whole file is guarded with #if _LIBUNWIND_ARM_EHABI, and then in the
middle we have these two blocks, which render them pretty un
Author: asiri
Date: Fri Jun 3 16:40:03 2016
New Revision: 271741
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=271741&view=rev
Log:
[libcxx] Fix c++98 test failures.
Adds XFAIL/UNSUPPORTED lit tags as appropriate. Gets a clean test run
for -std=c++98 on Fedora 20.
NFC.
Modified:
libcxx/trun
rmaprath added a comment.
@mclow.lists, @ericwf: Ping.
@bcraig: I guess you wouldn't be able to let this through on your own? (in case
if there isn't much interest in this functionality from others). Eric might be
away though (didn't see many emails from him), so I'll hold off for now.
/ Asiri
rmaprath added a subscriber: STL_MSFT.
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20328#451178, @mclow.lists wrote:
> Also, I don't see how this can be retargeted "at runtime"; are you implying
> that someone can choose at program launch time what threading system to use?
Yup, users
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20328#451197, @rmaprath wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20328#451178, @mclow.lists wrote:
>
> > Also, I don't see how this can be retargeted "at runtime"; are you implying
> > that someone can choose at program launch time what threading
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20328#451210, @STL_MSFT wrote:
> [Asiri Rathnayake]
>
> > The `constexpr` mutex constructor is apparently also a
>
> > pain point on windows [1], I'm sure @STL_MSFT knows more about it.
>
>
> That's because of MSVC-specific issues, where we n
rmaprath updated this revision to Diff 60017.
rmaprath added a comment.
Addressed comments from @mclow.lists.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20328
Files:
CMakeLists.txt
include/__config
include/__config_site.in
include/__dynamic_threading
include/__threading_support
include/thread
lib/C
rmaprath marked 2 inline comments as done.
rmaprath added a comment.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20328
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
rmaprath added a comment.
@mclow.lists, @EricWF: Gentle (and shameless) ping!
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20328
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
rmaprath added a comment.
@mclow.lists, @EricWF: Ping.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D20328
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20328#456271, @mclow.lists wrote:
> > I've adopted a initialize-on-first-use policy to workaround this
> > particular problem.
>
>
> That's not constexpr.
>
> You say it in your comment "This prohibits any prospects of calling a runtime
>
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D20328#456241, @mclow.lists wrote:
> > Apologies, not at program launch time but link time.
>
>
> I'm OK with that; I think that's unnecessary complication, but not a
> deal-breaker.
> The choosing at program launch seems unworkable to me.
>
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16948#456929, @EricWF wrote:
> Unless there are any objections I plan to commit this change on Friday.
>
> That will give it about a month of in-tree time before the 3.9 release branch.
Fine by me.
I didn't have much time to go through the
rmaprath added a comment.
> > Fine by me.
>
> >
>
> > I didn't have much time to go through the patch, is there a way to disable
> > this module from building? It won't compile for our targets until we put in
> > some sort of a porting layer (which I need to start thinking of). Would be
Author: asiri
Date: Tue Jun 14 10:51:01 2016
New Revision: 272680
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=272680&view=rev
Log:
[libunwind] Improve unwinder stack usage - III
Implement the same optimization committed under r271004 on non-EHABI,
non-SJLJ unwinder as well.
Change-Id: I7f80ed91
Sorry it took this long, got pushed down on my TODO list :)
Cheers,
/ Asiri
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Jonathan Roelofs via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 6/14/16 9:51 AM, Asiri Rathnayake via cfe-commits wrote:
>
>> Author: asiri
>
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16948#457266, @EricWF wrote:
> Add `LIBCXX_ENABLE_FILESYSTEM` CMake option to turn off only the filesystem
> parts of `libc++experimental.a`.
Thanks!
http://reviews.llvm.org/D16948
___
cfe-co
rmaprath added a comment.
LGTM. I'll leave you to commit if Marshall has no objection.
Thanks!
/ Asiri
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21407
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commit
rmaprath added a subscriber: rmaprath.
rmaprath accepted this revision.
rmaprath added a reviewer: rmaprath.
rmaprath added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
That looks fine to me.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21673
___
cfe-com
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D21673#466544, @weimingz wrote:
> It's a good idea. Currently, there are about 600+ "throws" being
> guarded by _LIBCPP_NO_EXCEPTIONS macro.
>
> How about let's merge the patch now and I can do the conversion of
> existing code to the wrap
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D21673#467317, @mclow.lists wrote:
> Just a reminder - the people who can approve patches for libc++ are
> @mclow.lists and @ericWF.
My bad, I thought it was too trivial. Won't happen again :)
/ Asiri
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D21803#470060, @tavianator wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D21803#469988, @bcraig wrote:
>
> > @rmaprath has been doing some work to make the threading runtime library
> > swappable. I don't recall if his work extended to libcxxabi or not
rmaprath added a subscriber: rmaprath.
rmaprath added a comment.
Small side question: so how are `__m_` and `__cv_` initialized in this setup?
is it that `pthread_mutex_lock()` and the like would be able to handle an
un-initialized blob of memory (in a thread-safe way)? Because I don't see a
ca
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D21637#471154, @EricWF wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D21637#471151, @rmaprath wrote:
>
> > Small side question: so how are `__m_` and `__cv_` initialized in this
> > setup? is it that `pthread_mutex_lock()` and the like would be able to
rmaprath added a comment.
Generally looks OK to me.
There are similar uses in test sources as well, but those can be taken care of
separately (I'm hoping to get back to the -fno-exceptions XFAILs soon).
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21706
___
cfe-commi
rmaprath abandoned this revision.
rmaprath added a comment.
Reason for abandoning: This patch uses opaque pointers to delegate `std::mutex`
and `std::condition_variable` types to the underlying platform implementation.
This creates problems given that these two types have `constexpr` constructor
rmaprath created this revision.
rmaprath added reviewers: mclow.lists, EricWF, bcraig.
rmaprath added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
This is the replacement for D20328.
Rather than using opaque pointer types to delegate the internal representations
of mutex / condvar / thread types, in this patch we
rmaprath created this revision.
rmaprath added reviewers: jroelofs, bcraig.
rmaprath added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
Herald added subscribers: rengolin, aemerson.
These registers are only available on a limited set of ARM targets (those based
on XScale). Other targets should not have to pay the
rmaprath added inline comments.
Comment at: CMakeLists.txt:108
@@ -107,2 +107,3 @@
option(LIBUNWIND_ENABLE_CROSS_UNWINDING "Enable cross-platform unwinding
support." OFF)
+option(LIBUNWIND_ENABLE_ARM_WMMX "Enable unwinding support for ARM WMMX
registers." ON)
rmaprath added inline comments.
Comment at: CMakeLists.txt:108
@@ -107,2 +107,3 @@
option(LIBUNWIND_ENABLE_CROSS_UNWINDING "Enable cross-platform unwinding
support." OFF)
+option(LIBUNWIND_ENABLE_ARM_WMMX "Enable unwinding support for ARM WMMX
registers." ON)
rmaprath added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D21991#474736, @compnerd wrote:
> I don't think that clang nor LLVM have much in terms of support for XScale.
> Can we do something more convoluted perhaps? I like the preprocessor based
> approach. However, if the compiler doesn't define
rmaprath updated this revision to Diff 62844.
rmaprath added a comment.
Addressed review comments from @bcraig:
- Got rid of some of the option name cleanups (done to make them more
consistent, but not relevant to the patch)
- Arranged it so that `libc++` vendors can drop in `__external_threadin
rmaprath marked 2 inline comments as done.
rmaprath added a comment.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21968
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
rmaprath updated this revision to Diff 62847.
rmaprath added a comment.
Improve comment. NFC.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21968
Files:
CMakeLists.txt
include/__config
include/__config_site.in
include/__threading_support
lib/CMakeLists.txt
test/CMakeLists.txt
test/libcxx/test/config.p
201 - 300 of 336 matches
Mail list logo
