https://github.com/weliveindetail closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79082
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/weliveindetail created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79178
Reverting because `clang-repl -Xcc -mcpu=arm1176jzf-s` isn't overwriting this
as I had expected. We need to check whether a specific CPU flag was given by
the user first.
Reverts llvm/llvm-project#77491
https://github.com/weliveindetail closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79178
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Stefan Gränitz
Date: 2024-01-24T11:45:04+01:00
New Revision: fb9a82b0235713782c1cf9d1eba20ce8d95766f7
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/fb9a82b0235713782c1cf9d1eba20ce8d95766f7
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/fb9a82b0235713782c1cf9d1eba20ce8d95766f7.diff
weliveindetail wrote:
The above patch landed after `release/18.x` branched. It drops the check for
`CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR` as discussed in this thread and only relies on the
linker-flag check.
This seems to be the right thing to do. I checked on 32-bit Raspbian @ RPi4b:
It correctly defaults
https://github.com/weliveindetail updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77313
From ab1fa3773766072882666a16682e985bbd9cd72d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Stefan=20Gr=C3=A4nitz?=
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 17:26:33 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/9] [JITLink][AArch32] Add GOT builder
https://github.com/weliveindetail created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78959
I cross-compile clang-repl with GCC-10 on Ubuntu 20.04 and get this error when
linking with gold: PLT offset too large, try linking with --long-plt
From 0449f8fc14a703aae515db1696bbbee578914629 Mon Sep 17
https://github.com/weliveindetail updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78959
From 0449f8fc14a703aae515db1696bbbee578914629 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Stefan=20Gr=C3=A4nitz?=
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:13:45 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang-repl] Fix linker error on AR
weliveindetail wrote:
Thank for the quick review! Toolchain files seem to set a lowercase string
sometimes, so I added a case-conversion.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78959
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://l
https://github.com/weliveindetail closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78959
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
weliveindetail wrote:
Oh, that's unfortunate. Let me add a check for `LLVM_USE_LINKER=gold`. AFAIK
it's never used on macOS.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78959
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org
Author: Stefan Gränitz
Date: 2024-01-22T17:16:52+01:00
New Revision: 2bb6d7b8a4d1e31d5c856174c163e77d7d3a0b94
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/2bb6d7b8a4d1e31d5c856174c163e77d7d3a0b94
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/2bb6d7b8a4d1e31d5c856174c163e77d7d3a0b94.diff
weliveindetail wrote:
@shiltian Does that fix the issue for you?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78959
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
weliveindetail wrote:
CMake does always have more surprises to offer :) Thanks for fixing it right
away @mstorsjo!
> When cross compiling LLVM, I never have set `CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR` so far,
> since we don't really have anything that uses it (before this), which means
> that this expands t
weliveindetail wrote:
Oh, I usually don't do that, but it's certainly a valid point. Can you think of
a better way to express the condition here? We need `-Wl,--long-plt` for ARM
targets whenever the used linker supports it. Otherwise we have to assume that
it emits such PLTs by default.
http
weliveindetail wrote:
> I don't really know more about the issue that requires --long-plt at the
> moment and why it's only needed for clang-repl
clang-repl binary size is ~3.7G in debug mode and this seems to exceed the
branch range of default ARM PLT slots. The instruction sequence that's
n
weliveindetail wrote:
I was wondering as well and checked the codebase for existing uses, but no
findings. Yes, clang has no JIT and may not reach the limit. And yes, LLDB is
mostly an `.so` where the linker's approach might differ and/or it's just not
built frequently for ARM. Myself, I usual
https://github.com/weliveindetail updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79082
From c206fb211666e77cbe6aeb806174774f5db1a2ce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Stefan=20Gr=C3=A4nitz?=
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 02:35:27 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [JITLink][AArch32] Implement Armv5
@@ -725,6 +725,60 @@ bool GOTBuilder::visitEdge(LinkGraph &G, Block *B, Edge
&E) {
return true;
}
+/// Create a new node in the link-graph for the given stub template.
+template
+static Block &allocStub(LinkGraph &G, Section &S, const uint8_t (&Code)[Size])
{
+ constexpr
https://github.com/weliveindetail commented:
Thanks for your notes @smithp35. This worked out nicely! A test for Thumb B to
Arm interworking is todo, because we need support for `R_ARM_THM_JUMP11` first.
I will work on it now. I think it's quite rare though and anyway, this is more
than Runtim
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ if(CLANG_PLUGIN_SUPPORT)
export_executable_symbols_for_plugins(clang-repl)
endif()
-string(TOUPPER ${CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR} system_processor)
+string(TOUPPER "${CMAKE_SYSTEM_PROCESSOR}" system_processor)
weliveindetail wrote:
(Unrelated c
@@ -725,6 +725,13 @@ bool GOTBuilder::visitEdge(LinkGraph &G, Block *B, Edge
&E) {
return true;
}
+const uint8_t ArmThumbv5LdrPc[] = {
+0x78, 0x47, // bx pc
+0xfd, 0xe7, // b #-6 ; Arm recommended sequence to follow bx pc
+0x04, 0xf0, 0x1
https://github.com/weliveindetail edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79082
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Stefan Gränitz
Date: 2021-09-23T21:33:34+02:00
New Revision: 767b328e506ef069ecbb89b7cc9e2da7f8f84c6c
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/767b328e506ef069ecbb89b7cc9e2da7f8f84c6c
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/767b328e506ef069ecbb89b7cc9e2da7f8f84c6c.diff
Author: Stefan Gränitz
Date: 2023-01-24T15:17:18+01:00
New Revision: d9eece916a8a9b370e1f90e6461c612d12c55729
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d9eece916a8a9b370e1f90e6461c612d12c55729
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d9eece916a8a9b370e1f90e6461c612d12c55729.diff
Author: Stefan Gränitz
Date: 2023-01-27T18:05:13+01:00
New Revision: 3b387d10707d3ec5f4786812cc055c89c3eaa161
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3b387d10707d3ec5f4786812cc055c89c3eaa161
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3b387d10707d3ec5f4786812cc055c89c3eaa161.diff
Author: Stefan Gränitz
Date: 2022-11-22T12:02:53+01:00
New Revision: 9a9d636caeea9ca9364b906364ac1aaba0869858
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/9a9d636caeea9ca9364b906364ac1aaba0869858
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/9a9d636caeea9ca9364b906364ac1aaba0869858.diff
Author: Stefan Gränitz
Date: 2022-11-22T13:43:08+01:00
New Revision: 01023bfcd33f922ed8c934ce563e54abe8bfe246
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/01023bfcd33f922ed8c934ce563e54abe8bfe246
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/01023bfcd33f922ed8c934ce563e54abe8bfe246.diff
Author: Stefan Gränitz
Date: 2022-11-22T20:51:09+01:00
New Revision: a37807ac8a3e9d2880a483940dcd33194f354bf8
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a37807ac8a3e9d2880a483940dcd33194f354bf8
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a37807ac8a3e9d2880a483940dcd33194f354bf8.diff
Author: Stefan Gränitz
Date: 2022-11-23T11:35:22+01:00
New Revision: 63d65d3764ea2fc27e0e1a6054ec42cff6d84158
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/63d65d3764ea2fc27e0e1a6054ec42cff6d84158
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/63d65d3764ea2fc27e0e1a6054ec42cff6d84158.diff
weliveindetail wrote:
Thanks for your follow-up. Yes, I agree it's best to leave it here as a draft.
We can reference it from future PRs to provide context, if we decide to
implement one part or the other in isolation. Thanks!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79936
___
https://github.com/weliveindetail updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97071
From ca2ab5f9e3470e87923c7b950b7b06e5ff21119e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Stefan=20Gr=C3=A4nitz?=
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:43:42 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [clang-repl] Fix RuntimeInterfaceBu
weliveindetail wrote:
Thanks for your feedback everyone!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97071
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/weliveindetail closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97071
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
weliveindetail wrote:
@vgvassilev Thanks for the ping. I got derailed and missed the fix for the
blocker!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84758
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/li
https://github.com/weliveindetail closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84758
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
weliveindetail wrote:
Some bots report failures after this patch landed. I will push a fix soon.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84758
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe
Author: Stefan Gränitz
Date: 2024-05-28T13:54:09+02:00
New Revision: 98f9bb384af1beb62eb62a353f0585281bee8c26
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/98f9bb384af1beb62eb62a353f0585281bee8c26
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/98f9bb384af1beb62eb62a353f0585281bee8c26.diff
weliveindetail wrote:
@vgvassilev I pushed a quick fix for the tests. I think we should
revisit/refactor the test story here though in the mid-term.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84758
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.or
Author: Stefan Gränitz
Date: 2024-05-28T22:48:55+02:00
New Revision: 6a47315a3cb2c6d381809f0ba5c89bd8dcdbcaa0
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/6a47315a3cb2c6d381809f0ba5c89bd8dcdbcaa0
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/6a47315a3cb2c6d381809f0ba5c89bd8dcdbcaa0.diff
weliveindetail wrote:
@vvereschaka Thanks for the note! should be fixed now.
> I am not sure how this patch changed these tests to start failing on Windows.
> Do you have any clue?
It's just cases I missed in the first quick-fix
> What do you mean?
This is adding a lot of boilerplate, becaus
Author: Stefan Gränitz
Date: 2024-05-28T23:20:27+02:00
New Revision: df542e1ed82bd4e5a9e345d3a3ae63a76893a0cf
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/df542e1ed82bd4e5a9e345d3a3ae63a76893a0cf
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/df542e1ed82bd4e5a9e345d3a3ae63a76893a0cf.diff
weliveindetail wrote:
Oh indeed, it seems we can decide to skip tests in `SetUp()`
```
class FooTest : public ::testing:Test {
protected:
void SetUp()
{
GTEST_SKIP();
}
};
```
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84758
___
cfe
weliveindetail wrote:
> Looks like you already implemented it. Nice.
Well, it's gonna be a bit more churn. Eventually, it will reduce coverage for
the incremental features in the frontend that are independent from the JIT. To
be honest, I don't mind because none of the targets seem relevant fo
Author: Stefan Gränitz
Date: 2024-05-30T11:52:15+02:00
New Revision: 4310988991b46c9a35f60abc27a08ee10309a50c
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4310988991b46c9a35f60abc27a08ee10309a50c
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4310988991b46c9a35f60abc27a08ee10309a50c.diff
weliveindetail wrote:
@jakeegan Thanks for reporting! Should be fixed now. Hope we caught them all 🤞
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84758
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
https://github.com/weliveindetail updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89734
From 3aef8a0b009b54c4839a323b21cb5b09aa50d035 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Stefan=20Gr=C3=A4nitz?=
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 12:23:11 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [clang-repl] Add test for explicit
https://github.com/weliveindetail created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93816
Reduce code bloat by checking test requirements in a common test fixture
From fd02a874601b8a72d05c3c1b219e28600851b56b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Stefan=20Gr=C3=A4nitz?=
Date: Thu, 30 May 20
weliveindetail wrote:
Here we go: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93816
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84758
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
weliveindetail wrote:
Oh interesting, the Windows test actually fails at this assertion:
```
DC->getLexicalParent() == CurContext && "The next DeclContext should be
lexically contained in the current one.", file
C:\ws\src\clang\lib\Sema\SemaDecl.cpp, line 1332
```
@vgvassilev Any ideas?
https
https://github.com/weliveindetail updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93816
From fd02a874601b8a72d05c3c1b219e28600851b56b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Stefan=20Gr=C3=A4nitz?=
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 14:32:52 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang-repl] Introduce common fixtu
https://github.com/weliveindetail closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93816
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
weliveindetail wrote:
Looking into https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/86/builds/81169 right
now. Pushing a fix soon.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/93816
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/c
Author: Stefan Gränitz
Date: 2024-05-30T17:03:21+02:00
New Revision: 647d2728c4dbc387521ce3984ebfda78ff2b031f
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/647d2728c4dbc387521ce3984ebfda78ff2b031f
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/647d2728c4dbc387521ce3984ebfda78ff2b031f.diff
https://github.com/weliveindetail updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84758
From 7ee5d29f69daf626a4fdc2fced802fe7e881f31e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Stefan=20Gr=C3=A4nitz?=
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2024 18:17:48 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang-repl] Set up executor implic
weliveindetail wrote:
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89031 should unblock this PR.
@vgvassilev It did. And it uncovered an issue that I didn't think about before:
If we set up the executor in the constructor, then the interpreter instance
isn't fully initialized yet when we create
https://github.com/weliveindetail updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84758
From 7ee5d29f69daf626a4fdc2fced802fe7e881f31e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Stefan=20Gr=C3=A4nitz?=
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2024 18:17:48 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [clang-repl] Set up executor implic
weliveindetail wrote:
Taking this patch would mean that deriving from Interpreter won't hold as the
mechanism for extensions! At least for customizing the JITBuilder. I propose to
pass the `LLJITBuilder` to the constructor then and to store it as a member for
later `Create/ResetExecutor()` cal
https://github.com/weliveindetail updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84758
From 7ee5d29f69daf626a4fdc2fced802fe7e881f31e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Stefan=20Gr=C3=A4nitz?=
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2024 18:17:48 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [clang-repl] Set up executor implic
https://github.com/weliveindetail created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89734
This patch adds test coverage for an edge case that is supported already.
From 085a93919d8f65419cc856fe5584c83d3eceb142 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Stefan=20Gr=C3=A4nitz?=
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+// UNSUPPORTED: system-aix
+
+// RUN: cat %s | clang-repl | FileCheck %s
+int *x = new int();
+template struct GuardX { T *&x; GuardX(T *&x) : x(x) {}; ~GuardX();
};
+template GuardX::~GuardX() { delete x; x = nullptr; }
+
+// clang would normally defer codege
weliveindetail wrote:
FYI: The run on the Windows bot failed even though tests worked as expected. In
particular, all `ClangReplInterpreterTests` unittests passed as well as all
`Interpreter` LIT tests. I could land this towards the end of the week.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84
https://github.com/weliveindetail updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89734
From 085a93919d8f65419cc856fe5584c83d3eceb142 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Stefan=20Gr=C3=A4nitz?=
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 12:23:11 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang-repl] Add test for explicit
https://github.com/weliveindetail updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89734
From 085a93919d8f65419cc856fe5584c83d3eceb142 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Stefan=20Gr=C3=A4nitz?=
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 12:23:11 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [clang-repl] Add test for explicit
@@ -241,18 +243,13 @@ int main(int argc, const char **argv) {
break;
}
if (Input == R"(%undo)") {
-if (auto Err = Interp->Undo()) {
+if (auto Err = Interp->Undo())
llvm::logAllUnhandledErrors(std::move(Err), llvm::errs(), "error: "
https://github.com/weliveindetail edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89879
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/weliveindetail approved this pull request.
I assume the return code is supposed to reflect only frontend errors? (See my
note inline.) From reading the test it's not obvious what is interactive mode
and what is non-interactive/batch mode. Might be worth a note. Otherwise, thi
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+// REQUIRES: host-supports-jit
+// UNSUPPORTED: system-aix
+
+// RUN: cat %s | clang-repl -Xcc -xc -Xcc -Xclang -Xcc -verify | FileCheck %s
+// RUN: cat %s | clang-repl -Xcc -xc -Xcc -O2 -Xcc -Xclang -Xcc -verify|
FileCheck %s
+int printf(const char *, ...);
+in
https://github.com/weliveindetail commented:
I am not an expert on the behavior of IdResolver, but this patch works for me.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89804
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/c
https://github.com/weliveindetail edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89804
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -407,6 +406,16 @@ void IncrementalParser::CleanUpPTU(PartialTranslationUnit
&PTU) {
}
}
}
+
+ // FIXME: We should de-allocate MostRecentTU
+ for (Decl *D : MostRecentTU->decls()) {
+if (!isa(D))
+ continue;
+// Check if we need to clean up the IdR
weliveindetail wrote:
> The Unix pre-merge seems okay, however the windows pre-merge check is doing
> nothing for more than 12h.
Yeah same here. I recognized that Windows PR checks are running Flang
regression tests now. I guess that adds a huge load on the builders and causes
the delays. Min
@@ -407,6 +406,16 @@ void IncrementalParser::CleanUpPTU(PartialTranslationUnit
&PTU) {
}
}
}
+
+ // FIXME: We should de-allocate MostRecentTU
+ for (Decl *D : MostRecentTU->decls()) {
+if (!isa(D))
+ continue;
+// Check if we need to clean up the IdR
https://github.com/weliveindetail created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96900
todo
From 2e1eac5919a56fd15a7c79281d6544c4958d6874 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Stefan=20Gr=C3=A4nitz?=
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:28:03 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] [clang-repl] Fix unboxing of va_a
https://github.com/weliveindetail created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97071
When generating runtime interface bindings, extend integral types to the native
register size rather than 64-bit per se
From ca2ab5f9e3470e87923c7b950b7b06e5ff21119e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8
https://github.com/weliveindetail closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96900
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
weliveindetail wrote:
Superseded by https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97071
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96900
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/weliveindetail updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97071
From ca2ab5f9e3470e87923c7b950b7b06e5ff21119e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Stefan=20Gr=C3=A4nitz?=
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:43:42 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang-repl] Fix RuntimeInterfaceBu
weliveindetail wrote:
> Any chance of adding a test case?
We could add a lot more tests in general, but I don't think this specific
detail requires a dedicated one. It's a fix for an existing bug, so we have
coverage already.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97071
___
101 - 179 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
