https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/130712
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Chuanqi Xu
Date: 2025-03-13T15:04:06+08:00
New Revision: 6345b009c3e58a6cd0eca835d5a935f8784cfda6
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/6345b009c3e58a6cd0eca835d5a935f8784cfda6
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/6345b009c3e58a6cd0eca835d5a935f8784cfda6.diff
LO
@@ -1104,9 +1104,13 @@ void Sema::ActOnStartOfTranslationUnit() {
}
void Sema::ActOnEndOfTranslationUnitFragment(TUFragmentKind Kind) {
- // No explicit actions are required at the end of the global module fragment.
- if (Kind == TUFragmentKind::Global)
+ if (Kind == TUFrag
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 commented:
would you like to add a test?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/128103
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Chuanqi Xu
Date: 2025-02-21T10:48:30+08:00
New Revision: 24c06a19be7bcf28b37e5eabbe65df95a2c0265a
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/24c06a19be7bcf28b37e5eabbe65df95a2c0265a
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/24c06a19be7bcf28b37e5eabbe65df95a2c0265a.diff
LO
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> > Adding metadata to an instruction should never be required for correctness
>
> I figured the existing use and the fact that it only needs to survive until
> CoroSplit made it good enough. But you're right, we should do better.
>
> I do think we need an explicit way to tel
Author: Chuanqi Xu
Date: 2025-02-25T13:30:30+08:00
New Revision: 366daddfad9aa38ebb7d40055cf65f4ecb7dd6f9
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/366daddfad9aa38ebb7d40055cf65f4ecb7dd6f9
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/366daddfad9aa38ebb7d40055cf65f4ecb7dd6f9.diff
LO
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/128103
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> > In the issue (#127499) you pointed out that this issue applies to the MSVC
> > ABI where all parameters are destroyed in the callee. Is it reasonable to
> > construct the analogous test case in that environment?
>
> Yes, in fact the reproducer on that issue will trigger u
@@ -6097,10 +6097,29 @@ const char *Driver::GetNamedOutputPath(Compilation &C,
const JobAction &JA,
}
llvm::PrettyStackTraceString CrashInfo("Computing output path");
+
// Output to a user requested destination?
if (AtTopLevel && !isa(JA) && !isa(JA)) {
-if (Arg
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
I hope to backport this to 20.x. It shouldn't be riskful given the modules
support in clangd is controlled by an "experiment" option.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/125988
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llv
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
/cherry-pick
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/ae839b02504a68a0dfe63ac8ec314d9d7a6ce8df
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/125988
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bi
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/125988
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/125988
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Chuanqi Xu
Date: 2025-02-27T18:51:39+08:00
New Revision: e3f52690c796baca241a6771d897adc6670a1ed8
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/e3f52690c796baca241a6771d897adc6670a1ed8
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/e3f52690c796baca241a6771d897adc6670a1ed8.diff
LO
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> > > > > > While I may not able to look into them in detail recently, it may
> > > > > > be helpful to split this into seperate patches to review and to
> > > > > > land.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I initially considered this, but @vgvassilev said in
> > > > > [root-pro
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> > Maybe you can test it with this and land it with different patches. So that
> > we can revert one of them if either of them are problematic but other parts
> > are fine.
>
> I'm ok with pushing the commits one-by-one after the PR is reviewed, just let
> me know.
>
> > >
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 approved this pull request.
Let it go.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/132214
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Chuanqi Xu
Date: 2025-03-27T14:04:41+08:00
New Revision: 80f216db530eda98a444bc1994c7d69a7107c3c6
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/80f216db530eda98a444bc1994c7d69a7107c3c6
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/80f216db530eda98a444bc1994c7d69a7107c3c6.diff
LO
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 commented:
LGTM.
But I didn't recognize you didn't update `MultiplexExternalSemaSource`. Every
time we add new interface to `ExternalASTSource`, we need to update
`MultiplexExternalSemaSource` too.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/132214
@@ -14,3 +14,11 @@
//--- test.pcm
// CPP20WARNING-NOT: clang-cl: warning: argument unused during compilation:
'/std:c++20' [-Wunused-command-line-argument]
+
+// test whether the following outputs %Hello.bmi
+// RUN: %clang_cl /std:c++20 --precompile -x c++-module
-fmodule-o
Author: Chuanqi Xu
Date: 2025-05-07T14:47:24+08:00
New Revision: 2d81994c4a41b950eed9bdee189cba9d00381b58
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/2d81994c4a41b950eed9bdee189cba9d00381b58
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/2d81994c4a41b950eed9bdee189cba9d00381b58.diff
LO
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
I just got a case:
```
class A {
public:
class B {
public:
B(A *);
// some non static data fields
};
B b(this);
};
```
Does this a valid prove that this optimization is not valid ?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/136792
__
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> Hi, this is my first contribution in LLVM. I would like to know ho many
> approves needed and is there anything else needed on my side? Thanks!
I think they just forgot to check if you have the write access. I think this is
good to merge if you fixed the CI or make sure it
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/140373
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> ### Performance measurements with LLVM
> I tested these patches for building LLVM itself with modules
> (`LLVM_ENABLE_MODULES=ON`). To work around #130795, I apply #131354 before
> building Clang. In terms of overall performance for the entire build, I'm not
> able to measu
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
BTW, I don't mind landing the rest 3 patches since they are "verified".
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/133057
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commi
@@ -1599,9 +1599,14 @@ CodeGenFunction::EmitAutoVarAlloca(const VarDecl &D) {
bool IsMSCatchParam =
D.isExceptionVariable() && getTarget().getCXXABI().isMicrosoft();
+ // No lifetime intrinsics on coroutine promise alloca, or middle end
+ // passes wi
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> Sorry, I don't remember seeing that discussion, and I'm probably missing lots
> of modules context. As a counter argument, clang-cl uses `/Yc` and `/Fp` to
> generate PCH files, to match MSVC's interface although the file format is
> different.
>
> More importantly, it fee
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> > @zmodem given how important this it, I hope we can make this for clang21.
> > Thanks!
>
> I'm just a reviewer here, and I still find the patch very confusing.
Not asking for an approval. It is just a ping : )
>
> And taking a step back, the whole point of clang-cl is to
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> Is `-Fo` even relevant here? The BMI output name comes from `-ifcOutput` (or
> `-fmodule-output=`). Consumption of external modules doesn't need an object,
> so it would only use `-fmodule-output=`.
>
> > Sorry, I don't remember seeing that discussion
>
> See this thread:
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/130712
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/130712
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> @emaxx-google, @ilya-biryukov, do you think we can move forward even though
> don't have a reproducer yet? It feels we are stuck on that one case on a
> downstream client -- worst case maybe the devs can work it around by changing
> source code for that one case?
Yes, I'm
@@ -6831,43 +6832,60 @@ std::optional
ASTReader::isPreprocessedEntityInFileID(unsigned Index,
return false;
}
-namespace {
-
- /// Visitor used to search for information about a header file.
- class HeaderFileInfoVisitor {
- FileEntryRef FE;
-std::optional HFI;
-
-
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/140867
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 commented:
> It turns out to be kind of a pain to use with HeaderFileInfoTrait. More
> importantly, we can't really afford to key by the internal key type since
> that only hashes on the size of the file and the hash collision gets pretty
> bad. Moreover, the mer
@@ -654,6 +654,10 @@ class ASTReader
/// Map from the TU to its lexical contents from each module file.
std::vector> TULexicalDecls;
+ unsigned HeaderFileInfoIdx = 0;
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
And also, this seems unsafe since ModuleManager can remove modules te
@@ -654,6 +654,10 @@ class ASTReader
/// Map from the TU to its lexical contents from each module file.
std::vector> TULexicalDecls;
+ unsigned HeaderFileInfoIdx = 0;
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
nit: Unloaded header file info idx.
And also I feel the name is odd.
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
@mathstuf in
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/140825#issuecomment-2900112555 ,
xmake dev said he can fix the problem by `/clang:-o`. I am wondering if you can
did similar thing in CMake if there is an argument?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/121046
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/131569
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/131569
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141890
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -195,6 +196,10 @@ class ExternalASTSource : public
RefCountedBase {
/// module.
virtual bool wasThisDeclarationADefinition(const FunctionDecl *FD);
+ virtual bool hasInitializerWithSideEffects(const VarDecl *VD) const {
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
Generally, e
@@ -1442,6 +1442,10 @@ class ASTReader
const StringRef &operator*() && = delete;
};
+ /// VarDecls with initializers containing side effects must be emitted,
+ /// but DeclMustBeEmitted is not allowed to deserialize the intializer.
+ llvm::SmallPtrSet InitSideEffectVa
@@ -1632,6 +1632,10 @@ RedeclarableResult
ASTDeclReader::VisitVarDeclImpl(VarDecl *VD) {
VD->NonParmVarDeclBits.PreviousDeclInSameBlockScope =
VarDeclBits.getNextBit();
+bool HasInitWithSideEffect = VarDeclBits.getNextBit();
+if (HasInitWithSideEffect)
+
@@ -2434,6 +2434,31 @@ VarDecl *VarDecl::getInitializingDeclaration() {
return Def;
}
+bool VarDecl::hasInitWithSideEffects() const {
+ if (!hasInit())
+return false;
+
+ // Check if we can get the initializer without deserializing
+ const Expr *E = nullptr;
+ if (au
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 commented:
I just found I forgot pushing pending comments.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143739
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commit
@@ -2434,6 +2434,31 @@ VarDecl *VarDecl::getInitializingDeclaration() {
return Def;
}
+bool VarDecl::hasInitWithSideEffects() const {
+ if (!hasInit())
+return false;
+
+ // Check if we can get the initializer without deserializing
+ const Expr *E = nullptr;
+ if (au
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143739
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Chuanqi Xu
Date: 2025-06-20T10:33:35+08:00
New Revision: 50c5ecd35402dc734f2a462df5532e77a5ce12b2
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/50c5ecd35402dc734f2a462df5532e77a5ce12b2
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/50c5ecd35402dc734f2a462df5532e77a5ce12b2.diff
LO
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
Just noticed that this is not using `std::optional`. If this is good,
why don't we put this to `llvm/ADT`? I feel that is a better place.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134142
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 commented:
Lifetimes are very important and crucial. I suggest you to abstract your
algorithm and send it to https://discourse.llvm.org/ for wider visibility.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/144319
___
cfe-commi
Author: Chuanqi Xu
Date: 2025-06-19T17:54:07+08:00
New Revision: 0fe78c4a290517925acc03d59f235926f440f155
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/0fe78c4a290517925acc03d59f235926f440f155
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/0fe78c4a290517925acc03d59f235926f440f155.diff
LO
Author: Chuanqi Xu
Date: 2025-06-20T17:03:29+08:00
New Revision: 14e89b061fdecedcec4bb035060a56588610cb5c
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/14e89b061fdecedcec4bb035060a56588610cb5c
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/14e89b061fdecedcec4bb035060a56588610cb5c.diff
LO
Author: Chuanqi Xu
Date: 2025-06-23T14:39:08+08:00
New Revision: fccc6ee7021811a27ab1303d19407f703853ab92
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/fccc6ee7021811a27ab1303d19407f703853ab92
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/fccc6ee7021811a27ab1303d19407f703853ab92.diff
LO
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 commented:
I don't feel bad but I'd like to leave the formal approvals to @jansvoboda11
and @Bigcheese here.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145221
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https:/
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143739
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -2434,6 +2434,31 @@ VarDecl *VarDecl::getInitializingDeclaration() {
return Def;
}
+bool VarDecl::hasInitWithSideEffects() const {
+ if (!hasInit())
+return false;
+
+ // Check if we can get the initializer without deserializing
+ const Expr *E = nullptr;
+ if (au
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
The design is, the higher 32 bits are used for module file index and the lower
bits are used for offsets. Could you give a concrete example why the current
implementation is problematic?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145529
___
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> If modules are considered as system headers in clang-tidy, there was work in
> #128150 to reduce scope of traversal to match only in user code (I suppose it
> would affect modules too). But that PR had to be reverted due to appeared
> issues with downstream users. Hopefully
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> > The design is, the higher 32 bits are used for module file index and the
> > lower bits are used for offsets. Could you give a concrete example why the
> > current implementation is problematic?
>
> I don’t have a concrete failure case, but I noticed this while working on
@@ -8,470 +8,966 @@ Debugging C++ Coroutines
Introduction
-For performance and other architectural reasons, the C++ Coroutines feature in
-the Clang compiler is implemented in two parts of the compiler. Semantic
-analysis is performed in Clang, and Coroutine cons
Author: Chuanqi Xu
Date: 2025-06-25T17:51:50+08:00
New Revision: 4efb61850b590941a8da51057d3a63782864f44c
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4efb61850b590941a8da51057d3a63782864f44c
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4efb61850b590941a8da51057d3a63782864f44c.diff
LO
Author: Chuanqi Xu
Date: 2025-06-25T14:12:32+08:00
New Revision: a0ce3e691c199145b55b6a7f86468b438eb14264
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a0ce3e691c199145b55b6a7f86468b438eb14264
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a0ce3e691c199145b55b6a7f86468b438eb14264.diff
LO
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
Yeah, and for what it worth, maybe you want to take a look at:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-c-modules-stop-using-abbrev-and-drop-the-maintainance/87063/2
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145529
___
cfe-commits mailing li
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 approved this pull request.
LGTM. Maintainability is important given the limited dev resources right now.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145670
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lis
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 commented:
Sorry. I failed to understand the problem. In what case, may the encoder
produce up to 33 bits?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145529
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://l
@@ -8,470 +8,966 @@ Debugging C++ Coroutines
Introduction
-For performance and other architectural reasons, the C++ Coroutines feature in
-the Clang compiler is implemented in two parts of the compiler. Semantic
-analysis is performed in Clang, and Coroutine cons
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 approved this pull request.
LGTM generally.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142651
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142651
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
The direction meets my expectation. I think you already have an existing test
for swift. Maybe you can try to reduce a lit test from it.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143739
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.
@@ -176,14 +176,10 @@ class StoredDeclsList {
DeclListNode::Decls *Tail = erase_if([Decls](NamedDecl *ND) {
if (ND->isFromASTFile())
return true;
- // FIXME: Can we get rid of this loop completely?
- for (NamedDecl *D : Decls)
-// Only replac
@@ -176,14 +176,10 @@ class StoredDeclsList {
DeclListNode::Decls *Tail = erase_if([Decls](NamedDecl *ND) {
if (ND->isFromASTFile())
return true;
- // FIXME: Can we get rid of this loop completely?
- for (NamedDecl *D : Decls)
-// Only replac
@@ -177,13 +177,10 @@ class StoredDeclsList {
if (ND->isFromASTFile())
return true;
// FIXME: Can we get rid of this loop completely?
- for (NamedDecl *D : Decls)
-// Only replace the local declaration if the external declaration has
-//
@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+# A smoke test to check that a simple dependency chain for modules can work.
+#
+# FIXME: This fails on the Windows ARM64 build server. Not entirely sure why
as it has been tested on
+#an ARM64 Windows VM and appears to work there.
+# UNSUPPORTED: host=a
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143275
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143275
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142828
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 approved this pull request.
LGTM then. Thanks.
BTW, clangd prefer unittests than lit test. So you'd better to use unittests
next time.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142828
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-com
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
@fleeting-xx BTW, I think this worth to be backported to 20.x. But we need to
fix the above problem first.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142828
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.or
@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+# A smoke test to check that a simple dependency chain for modules can work.
+#
+# FIXME: This fails on the Windows ARM64 build server. Not entirely sure why
as it has been tested on
+#an ARM64 Windows VM and appears to work there.
+# UNSUPPORTED: host=a
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 commented:
What is the difference between this one and the previous PR?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145447
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listin
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142651
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145447
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Chuanqi Xu
Date: 2025-06-26T13:39:45+08:00
New Revision: a6e524276e2c0596162a9635e0aa87a5ba145409
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a6e524276e2c0596162a9635e0aa87a5ba145409
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a6e524276e2c0596162a9635e0aa87a5ba145409.diff
LO
@@ -1469,6 +1470,12 @@ bool MatchASTVisitor::TraverseDecl(Decl *DeclNode) {
return true;
}
+ if (Options.SkipDeclsInModules && DeclNode->isFromASTFile()) {
+auto *M = DeclNode->getOwningModule();
+if (M && (M->isInterfaceOrPartition() || M->isGlobalModule()))
+
@@ -139,6 +139,11 @@ class MatchFinder {
///
/// It prints a report after match.
std::optional CheckProfiling;
+
+bool SkipDeclsInModules = false;
+
+MatchFinderOptions()
+: CheckProfiling(std::nullopt), SkipDeclsInModules(false) {}
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145630
>From 3e526e9a666dcc2ea0e6bdcb666dca43ab6ba740 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chuanqi Xu
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:22:10 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang-tidy] [Modules] Skip checking decls in clang-tidy
--
@@ -1469,6 +1470,12 @@ bool MatchASTVisitor::TraverseDecl(Decl *DeclNode) {
return true;
}
+ if (Options.SkipDeclsInModules && DeclNode->isFromASTFile()) {
+auto *M = DeclNode->getOwningModule();
+if (M && (M->isInterfaceOrPartition() || M->isGlobalModule()))
+
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145529
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/145711
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 commented:
I love this really.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141937
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Chuanqi Xu
Date: 2025-06-27T13:35:09+08:00
New Revision: d829636f5d71d8a3771d9f96f22f1fe7507a32ec
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d829636f5d71d8a3771d9f96f22f1fe7507a32ec
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d829636f5d71d8a3771d9f96f22f1fe7507a32ec.diff
LO
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> @ChuanqiXu9 @dwblaikie please let me know if you feel comfortable reviewing
> this change or if we also need input from others 🙂
I like the work but my knowledge to dwarf is limited. But I'd like to approve
this if no one gives feedbacks. I do think it is better to move on.
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 approved this pull request.
I don't feel there are coroutine specific things, but if you want, I can accept
this.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141937
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
ht
@@ -1702,36 +1702,7 @@ static NamedDecl* getLambdaCallOperatorHelper(const
CXXRecordDecl &RD) {
assert(allLookupResultsAreTheSame(Calls) &&
"More than one lambda call operator!");
-
- // FIXME: If we have multiple call operators, we might be in a situation
- // w
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142090
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 approved this pull request.
Thanks. I feel good with it.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141889
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
FWIW, I sent https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143647
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142828
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
2201 - 2300 of 2375 matches
Mail list logo
