tru wrote:
Can this be merged and ready for a backport next week?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70646
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
tru wrote:
@tomekpaszek do you plan to finish this PR? we have been testing it internally
on our code and would really like this to land in upstream LLVM.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70338
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.l
tru wrote:
17.0.5 is going to be released tomorrow, is this fix good to go for the
backport?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70646
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-co
tru wrote:
@rnk @amykhuang might be interested in reviewing as well.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71300
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/tru updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/73957
>From 2791b93517fbffec8757ab994246a98b4fd9d727 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tobias Hieta
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 09:42:33 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [workflow] Fix abi checker in llvm-tests. Same fix as in
99fb0af80d
tru wrote:
This should be good now - a last look @boomanaiden154 ?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/73957
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
tru wrote:
> We probably should backport it to 17.0.6. What do you all think? @tru
Yep - seems like a good and small fix to have in 17.x
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/72520
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://li
tru wrote:
@owenca I picked da1b1fba5cfd41521a840202d8cf4c3796c5e10b on top of the 17.x
branch and my test case was not fixed, it still crashes in the same way as
described in #72628
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/72520
___
cfe-commits ma
tru wrote:
> Thanks for trying it on 17.x. We can't backport it then.
Any idea if there is another workaround or fix that we could do to target 17.x?
18 is still pretty far off and clang-format for 17 will soon be included in a
lot of downstream tools. Happy to help out fixing it if you have a
tru wrote:
Thanks for the patch @spavloff - I will make sure to try it today!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70646
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
tru wrote:
Our code compiles without warnings with this patch!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70646
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
tru wrote:
This needs to be cleaned up before it can be merged. There needs to be only one
commit in this PR without the merge commits from main.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75373
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
h
tru wrote:
It also needs tests.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75373
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/tru approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75903
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Tobias Hieta
Date: 2022-06-28T09:11:34+02:00
New Revision: 3f0578dd87ee5539eccae507b6a77cfe3354d705
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3f0578dd87ee5539eccae507b6a77cfe3354d705
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3f0578dd87ee5539eccae507b6a77cfe3354d705.diff
Author: Tobias Hieta
Date: 2022-07-05T13:45:52+02:00
New Revision: e6ff553979e850eeb7f0bbe77deab1c88fc764b3
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/e6ff553979e850eeb7f0bbe77deab1c88fc764b3
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/e6ff553979e850eeb7f0bbe77deab1c88fc764b3.diff
Author: Tobias Hieta
Date: 2022-03-24T09:42:34+01:00
New Revision: 67d9276b16024bae66dfc2fcb739d947637b8c52
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/67d9276b16024bae66dfc2fcb739d947637b8c52
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/67d9276b16024bae66dfc2fcb739d947637b8c52.diff
Author: Tobias Hieta
Date: 2022-03-23T10:23:33+01:00
New Revision: 09c0685a043dd4028545c134b562c2605e294855
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/09c0685a043dd4028545c134b562c2605e294855
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/09c0685a043dd4028545c134b562c2605e294855.diff
Author: Tobias Hieta
Date: 2022-05-20T16:11:20+02:00
New Revision: 749fb33e82ff19d656af9c9205f3ac81c1ce52d8
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/749fb33e82ff19d656af9c9205f3ac81c1ce52d8
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/749fb33e82ff19d656af9c9205f3ac81c1ce52d8.diff
tru wrote:
> I think .natvis files should be CRLF (those are used with Visual Studio for
> debug visualizers).
Agreed, Visual Studio should handle this correctly, but who knows 🤷🏼
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86318
___
cfe-commits maili
https://github.com/tru edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84864
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/tru commented:
Thanks for working on documentation!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84864
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -2410,20 +2410,35 @@ usual build cycle when using sample profilers for
optimization:
1. Build the code with source line table information. You can use all the
usual build flags that you always build your application with. The only
- requirement is that you add ``-glin
@@ -2410,20 +2410,35 @@ usual build cycle when using sample profilers for
optimization:
1. Build the code with source line table information. You can use all the
usual build flags that you always build your application with. The only
- requirement is that you add ``-glin
@@ -2410,20 +2410,35 @@ usual build cycle when using sample profilers for
optimization:
1. Build the code with source line table information. You can use all the
usual build flags that you always build your application with. The only
- requirement is that you add ``-glin
https://github.com/tru approved this pull request.
This seems good to me, it worked in my internal test as I expected it!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81037
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi
tru wrote:
I haven't checked closely yet, but it seems like you need to add tests.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79390
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+name: Release Lit
+
+permissions:
+ contents: read
+
+on:
+ workflow_dispatch:
+inputs:
+ release-version:
+description: 'Release Version'
+required: true
+type: string
+
+ workflow_call:
+inputs:
+ release-version:
+
@@ -10,112 +10,70 @@ on:
- 'llvmorg-*'
jobs:
- release-tasks:
-permissions:
- contents: write # To upload assets to release.
+ validate-tag:
+name: Validate Tag
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
if: github.repository == 'llvm/llvm-project'
+outputs:
+
tru wrote:
@tomekpaszek Hi Tomek, do you think you will have time to work on this soon?
Otherwise, I can probably finish it off for you since we also want this feature.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70338
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-c
tru wrote:
@owenca What's the things that still needs to be addressed for this to land?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/70338
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
tru wrote:
Thanks @owenca !
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78682
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/tru approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78823
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
tru wrote:
Yep. Want me to do it or do you have access now?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65215
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
tru wrote:
@gedare can you fix the merge conflict on this one?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/69340
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Tobias Hieta
Date: 2022-10-25T09:59:39+02:00
New Revision: fd1d93db71066bedc11944bd32f3540b8084b060
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/fd1d93db71066bedc11944bd32f3540b8084b060
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/fd1d93db71066bedc11944bd32f3540b8084b060.diff
Author: Tobias Hieta
Date: 2022-10-25T10:08:51+02:00
New Revision: 885dadf648fc5b174e21175f726917e1528df218
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/885dadf648fc5b174e21175f726917e1528df218
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/885dadf648fc5b174e21175f726917e1528df218.diff
Author: H. Vetinari
Date: 2022-08-25T08:36:01+02:00
New Revision: 0f28d4856630f8b5c6708069b4e35d7345838d6b
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/0f28d4856630f8b5c6708069b4e35d7345838d6b
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/0f28d4856630f8b5c6708069b4e35d7345838d6b.diff
L
Author: Tobias Hieta
Date: 2022-08-25T09:56:55+02:00
New Revision: 5218a542ac09ea97f78681f4f1b90a3b835c
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/5218a542ac09ea97f78681f4f1b90a3b835c
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/5218a542ac09ea97f78681f4f1b90a3b835c.diff
Author: Tobias Hieta
Date: 2022-11-07T08:34:57+01:00
New Revision: 70de684d44135b4025d92b2b36ad387cf5ab8b5a
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/70de684d44135b4025d92b2b36ad387cf5ab8b5a
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/70de684d44135b4025d92b2b36ad387cf5ab8b5a.diff
Author: Tobias Hieta
Date: 2022-11-08T10:05:59+01:00
New Revision: aa99b607b5cf8ef1260f5661dcbf077f26ee797c
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/aa99b607b5cf8ef1260f5661dcbf077f26ee797c
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/aa99b607b5cf8ef1260f5661dcbf077f26ee797c.diff
Author: Tobias Hieta
Date: 2022-06-23T14:04:23+02:00
New Revision: b6a33cec3830b6c9ea35faf35b4a5889c22c6ae9
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/b6a33cec3830b6c9ea35faf35b4a5889c22c6ae9
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/b6a33cec3830b6c9ea35faf35b4a5889c22c6ae9.diff
https://github.com/tru approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65215
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/tru commented:
It looks fine to me, but maybe we should have an entry for it in the
`CMake.rst` documentation since the other `LLVM_*_VC` options are documented.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67125
___
cfe-commits mailin
tru wrote:
No I don't think it's job's fault. I ran clang-format on this file and it's not
formatted at all, so I think when we ask it to just format a patch like we do
in the job, it gets a bit confused and give you a bit of non-sense formatting.
This is just a limitation of not running forma
tru wrote:
Looking at it - it seems like none of Tablegen is correctly clang-formatted. If
that's not desired, maybe it should have a local .clang-format file to disable
the formatting of these files.
Do we have a clang-tblgen maintainer? Couldn't find anything in the codeowners
and git log h
tru wrote:
Did you plan to backport this as well @mstorsjo ?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67891
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/tru closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67911
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
tru wrote:
oh sorry for merging this @owenca - it was tagged for the 17.x release and I
thought it was a PR towards the backport branch so ti wasn't my intention to
merge it into main for you.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67911
___
cfe-
tru wrote:
Yeah i noticed when I got further down in my notification stack :)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67891
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
tru wrote:
We guarantee abi/api stability between the patch versions, so I would say no.
Maybe if we think it's critical enough we could do a 17.1.0, but this doesn't
seem to be the case when reading the description at least. Is this a regression
from LLVM 16?
I could be convinced, but my def
tru wrote:
cc @mstorsjo @sylvain-audi @aganea
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66816
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Tobias Hieta
Date: 2023-07-25T13:58:49+02:00
New Revision: 4706251a3186c34da0ee8fd894f7e6b095da8fdc
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4706251a3186c34da0ee8fd894f7e6b095da8fdc
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4706251a3186c34da0ee8fd894f7e6b095da8fdc.diff
Author: Tobias Hieta
Date: 2023-07-25T13:58:49+02:00
New Revision: 4706251a3186c34da0ee8fd894f7e6b095da8fdc
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4706251a3186c34da0ee8fd894f7e6b095da8fdc
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/4706251a3186c34da0ee8fd894f7e6b095da8fdc.diff
tru wrote:
Seems like a nice cleanup on top of the fact that we don't have to use a
deprecated module. I am guessing it didn't cause any output errors.
Regarding build-bots, I am unsure where we automatically build the
documentation. Pushing the docs to the main branch will rebuild and put the
tru wrote:
Instead of updating the module manually on the bot, I still think it's a good
idea to add a requirements.txt that should be installed before running the
build, ideally in a virtualenv. WDYT @andreil99
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65664
_
tru wrote:
@ldionne thanks for the whitespace check! I have already put some work into the
clang-format action on my end. Would you mind dropping it from this PR and let
me push mine first? My action is not just restricted to the clang subdir.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66509
_
tru wrote:
ping @tstellar - guess it can be a wrong team name / label name?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66420
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Tobias Hieta
Date: 2023-07-14T14:37:24+02:00
New Revision: af744f0b84e2b6410be65277068b9033124c73b2
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/af744f0b84e2b6410be65277068b9033124c73b2
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/af744f0b84e2b6410be65277068b9033124c73b2.diff
https://github.com/tru edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65215
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/tru requested changes to this pull request.
Thanks for the PR, I think we at least need to make sure that we don't erase
flags that have been set by the user manually.
Another option would just to say that this configuration ARM64 + MSVC of this
version is not a valid config
@@ -30,6 +30,15 @@ set(LLVM_LINK_COMPONENTS
TransformUtils
)
+# Workaround for MSVC ARM64 performance regression: disable all optimizations
(/Od)
+# and then enable back all /O2 options except one.
+if(NOT CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE MATCHES Debug
+AND MSVC
+AND MSVC_VERSI
https://github.com/tru review_requested
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65215
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -30,6 +30,15 @@ set(LLVM_LINK_COMPONENTS
TransformUtils
)
+# Workaround for MSVC ARM64 performance regression: disable all optimizations
(/Od)
tru wrote:
I think this comment also should link to the issue on the Microsoft side so
that we can know to
https://github.com/tru labeled https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65215
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/tru labeled https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65215
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -30,6 +30,15 @@ set(LLVM_LINK_COMPONENTS
TransformUtils
)
+# Workaround for MSVC ARM64 performance regression: disable all optimizations
(/Od)
+# and then enable back all /O2 options except one.
+if(NOT CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE MATCHES Debug
+AND MSVC
+AND MSVC_VERSI
tru wrote:
I suspect maybe the MSVC_VERSION check might exclude clang-cl, but we should
make sure, because @omjavaid is correct, we shouldn't apply this to clang-cl
unless it shows the same problems.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65215
__
@@ -39,6 +40,4 @@ struct C {
static_assert(__builtin_offsetof(C, n) == 8,
"long long field in ms_struct should be 8-byte aligned");
-#if !defined(TEST_FOR_ERROR) && !defined(TEST_FOR_WARNING)
-// expected-no-diagnostics
-#endif
+// expected-warning@-2 {{offset of
@@ -39,6 +40,4 @@ struct C {
static_assert(__builtin_offsetof(C, n) == 8,
"long long field in ms_struct should be 8-byte aligned");
-#if !defined(TEST_FOR_ERROR) && !defined(TEST_FOR_WARNING)
-// expected-no-diagnostics
-#endif
+// expected-warning@-2 {{offset of
tru wrote:
Ping @llvm/pr-subscribers-libcxx
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65246
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Tobias Hieta
Date: 2023-04-14T09:48:24+02:00
New Revision: 104cd749f5cca609a79303c0dad22bc041b5448a
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/104cd749f5cca609a79303c0dad22bc041b5448a
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/104cd749f5cca609a79303c0dad22bc041b5448a.diff
Author: Tobias Hieta
Date: 2023-02-13T15:43:08+01:00
New Revision: 877859a09bda29fe9a7f1a9016b06cf80661a032
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/877859a09bda29fe9a7f1a9016b06cf80661a032
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/877859a09bda29fe9a7f1a9016b06cf80661a032.diff
Author: Tobias Hieta
Date: 2023-02-13T16:58:13+01:00
New Revision: b8c2ba138ef689710efaa6331a618620058057fb
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/b8c2ba138ef689710efaa6331a618620058057fb
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/b8c2ba138ef689710efaa6331a618620058057fb.diff
Author: Tobias Hieta
Date: 2023-02-23T16:07:35+01:00
New Revision: 3b6c88331bcd0531d627fe27de5dbd0ac3165300
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3b6c88331bcd0531d627fe27de5dbd0ac3165300
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3b6c88331bcd0531d627fe27de5dbd0ac3165300.diff
tru wrote:
cc @sylvain-audi
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81677
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
tru wrote:
Do we still need to fix this for 19.1.0-final?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/100091
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/tru approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90138
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
tru wrote:
I don't have the bandwidth to get a RFC through right now. If this is broken
and no-one wants to take care of getting consensus for something new, I suggest
you revert to the previous state. For my toolchain I can continue to carry a
patch until this is all sorted.
https://github.c
https://github.com/tru created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/88857
Previously the trivial_abi was ignored for records when targetting the
microsoft abi, the MSVC rules where always enforced to ensure compatibility
with MSVC. This commit changes it to be closer to the itanium abi whe
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-pc-windows-msvc -std=c++11 -fcxx-exceptions
-fexceptions -emit-llvm -o - %s | FileCheck %s
+
+// CHECK: %[[STRUCT_TRIVIAL:.*]] = type { ptr }
+struct __attribute__((trivial_abi)) Trivial {
+ int *p;
+ Trivial() : p(0) {}
+ Tr
https://github.com/tru updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/88857
>From 08214d87d1a7c83ea25eef3bf18de1568a20a152 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tobias Hieta
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 09:38:53 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] [clang] Handle trivial_abi attribute for Microsoft ABI.
Previously the
tru wrote:
@efriedma-quic are you ok with this change?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/88857
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -1105,6 +1105,11 @@ bool MicrosoftCXXABI::hasMostDerivedReturn(GlobalDecl
GD) const {
static bool isTrivialForMSVC(const CXXRecordDecl *RD, QualType Ty,
CodeGenModule &CGM) {
+ // If the record is marked with the trivial_abi attribute, we don'
tru wrote:
The final decision is Toms, but I don't think it qualifies since we are so late
in the current process and that 19 will start in just a few months.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/87392
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@li
https://github.com/tru approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98431
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
tru wrote:
We have a custom toolchain that uses the new style on windows and if you build
with runtimes on windows (which is the suggested way) it will end up with the
new style without arch suffix. I don't think we can assume this is correct for
windows in all setups. I am fine with this chan
tru wrote:
It's been like that for maybe 2-3 years now and no one has complained about it,
so I think that change is solid. I can suggest a CMake change, but last time it
was discussed I think @maskray was against a new variable, but since we might
need to have some different behaviour it migh
tru wrote:
I agree that if downstream want to change stuff, they need to engage. We can't
guess what microsoft wants to do (or sony) unless we have a discussion about
it. This is also documented in the developer policy. If there are missed
release notes, they need to be added of course.
That
tru wrote:
Honestly - I think going back to *one* style of runtime path is to be preferred
now. But I don't think it's fair to say that it doesn't solve any problems,
because we switched to it so that we could ship more platforms in one toolchain
package without having to add cfg files and sim
tru wrote:
And I think it's better to revert it all instead of implementing this
half-revert in this PR in that case and then we should discuss how to move
forward.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89775
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-comm
https://github.com/tru approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89517
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/tru approved this pull request.
I find changes to the multi-stage build caches a bit confusing to review
without being able to see the cache that's generated. But I trust that you have
tested this and it works as expected, In that case you can merge this.
https://github.com/
tru wrote:
> > LLVM_ENABLE_PER_TARGET_RUNTIME_DIR=on
>
>
>
> I'm unable to find what code this affects. I don't see it mentioned anywhere
> in clang/lib or clang/include.
>
>
>
> It does seem like it should control the behavior of
> `ToolChain::getCompilerRT`; where I had added the Windo
tru wrote:
I think I suggested that we should make the CMake variable change the driver
behaviour to reflect the setting in order to remove unexpected fallbacks and
that the vendor could select the layout. I still think that's probably the
better solution.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-projec
https://github.com/tru approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90139
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
tru wrote:
If this is for permanent storage I suggest we use TXZ instead, since it has
better compression. You should also set CPACK_ARCHIVE_THREADS to something
higher than the default (1). Since xz really benefits from this.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90138
___
tru wrote:
ping on this.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/88857
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -1105,6 +1105,11 @@ bool MicrosoftCXXABI::hasMostDerivedReturn(GlobalDecl
GD) const {
static bool isTrivialForMSVC(const CXXRecordDecl *RD, QualType Ty,
CodeGenModule &CGM) {
+ // If the record is marked with the trivial_abi attribute, we don'
tru wrote:
Hmm. It's a bit worrying that we can't have the tests running... I wonder what
the workflow would be here since we need to verify before we run the binaries.
What's the problem with the tests currently?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/98431
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
