@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++98 %s -triple x86_64-linux-gnu -emit-llvm -o -
-fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors | llvm-cxxfilt -n | FileCheck %s
--check-prefixes CHECK
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++11 %s -triple x86_64-linux-gnu -emit-llvm -o -
-fexcept
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83715
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Endilll wrote:
Bulk formatting of Clang is still under discussion in
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-clang-format-all-the-things/76614. At least I
don't see a consensus called there one way or another.
Our [developer policy](https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html) states the
following:
>
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83774
>From 26245679b0f40b510e628aaed091739e9931c29c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: wangpc
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 10:38:14 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [clang] Enable sized deallocation by default in C++14
onwards
Sinc
https://github.com/Endilll approved this pull request.
I used a different approach for CWG292 test that avoids passing
`-fsized-deallocation` in 98 and 11 modes, as this is not a conforming mode for
them. Now changes to DR tests look good :) I hope you don't mind me pushing
commits to your PR.
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79981
>From 634c7d1a1205c9d047f8b3000cb93128a278006f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 14:01:11 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang] Add tests for DRs about inheriting constructors
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79981
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Endilll wrote:
To be honest, I'm not keen on the idea of filing bug tracker issues for
problems accounted for in other way (DR status, `FIXME`), until we get bug
tracker in a good shape, or at least have an understanding how project
management side of things is going to look.
> Is there anyth
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79981
>From 634c7d1a1205c9d047f8b3000cb93128a278006f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 14:01:11 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [clang] Add tests for DRs about inheriting constructors
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++98 %s -triple x86_64-linux-gnu -emit-llvm -o -
-fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors | llvm-cxxfilt -n | FileCheck %s
--check-prefixes CHECK
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++11 %s -triple x86_64-linux-gnu -emit-llvm -o -
-fexcept
https://github.com/Endilll created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80338
Covers CWG issues
[185](https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/185.html),
[193](https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/193.html),
[199](https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/199.html).
I also looked at [190](htt
Endilll wrote:
@eaeltsin I'm against reverting this or introducing a switch until we get a
reproducer (or author figures out what's wrong). I believe it's a very
worthwhile feature, and we want some actionable feedback to improve it. Author
has been very responsive so far, so we are good on t
Endilll wrote:
> For us, these crashes block a solid piece of internal testing, thus new
> unnoticed errors accumulate and make things exponentially harder for the
> future.
If you have a solid piece of internal testing blocked by this, can you provide
us with more data? Ideally a working rep
Timm =?utf-8?q?Bäder?=
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
@@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ class ByteCodeExprGen : public
ConstStmtVisitor, bool>,
bool VisitCXXScalarValueInitExpr(const CXXScalarValueInitExpr *E);
bool VisitSizeOfPackExpr(const SizeOfPackExpr *E);
bool VisitGenericSelection
https://github.com/Endilll approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80023
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78095
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Endilll wrote:
@bgra8 Thank you! This is helpful.
> The problem is extremely hard to reduce as it happens during preprocessing
> and even removing unrelated headers causes the crash to disappear.
Yeah, crashes happening at this stage can easily be insane to reduce manually.
> This crash is bl
Endilll wrote:
> > As mentioned above, `-fno-color-diagnostics` is the flag you can deploy
> > internally this very moment.
>
> Disabling color diagnostics would make the job of other software engineers
> harder, right? This hammer is a bit too big for the problem at hand, right?
I thought we
Endilll wrote:
> We can't push internally a compiler that crashes unless we disable color
> diagnostics.
I hope you realize this is self-imposed limitation that Clang community doesn't
necessary have to respect.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66514
_
Endilll wrote:
> gentle ping. Please check the mergeability of this PR.
Friendly reminder of one ping per week policy.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78338
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-b
@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ def err_verify_invalid_no_diags : Error<
"%select{expected|'expected-no-diagnostics'}0 directive cannot follow "
"%select{'expected-no-diagnostics' directive|other expected directives}0">;
Endilll wrote:
@Sh0g0-1758 Please have patie
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78338
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80823
This patch covers CWG issues
[201](https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/201.html),
[210](https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/210.html),
[292](https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/292.html).
[CWG208](https:
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++98 %s -triple x86_64-linux-gnu -emit-llvm
-disable-llvm-passes -O0 -o - -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors |
llvm-cxxfilt -n | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes CHECK
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++11 %s -triple x86_64-linux-gnu
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80823
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++98 %s -triple x86_64-linux-gnu -emit-llvm
-disable-llvm-passes -O0 -o - -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors |
llvm-cxxfilt -n | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes CHECK
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++11 %s -triple x86_64-linux-gnu
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++98 %s -triple x86_64-linux-gnu -emit-llvm
-disable-llvm-passes -O0 -o - -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions -pedantic-errors |
llvm-cxxfilt -n | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes CHECK
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++11 %s -triple x86_64-linux-gnu
Endilll wrote:
@linux4life798 Can you review the last update?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77269
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Endilll wrote:
I find `llvm::Bitfield` API with all its explicit setters with explicit storage
parameter clunky compared to language bit-fields. But that's minor. My major
issue with this patch is that `uint64_t Storage;` is as opaque for debuggers as
it gets. It would take so much work to cor
https://github.com/Endilll closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67948
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78898
>From b99a75a8756a7841657fc78ffbd40f780a412f2b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 16:26:29 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang][Sema] Add checks for validity of default ctor's
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78898
>From b99a75a8756a7841657fc78ffbd40f780a412f2b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 16:26:29 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang][Sema] Add checks for validity of default ctor's
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78898
>From b99a75a8756a7841657fc78ffbd40f780a412f2b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 16:26:29 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang][Sema] Add checks for validity of default ctor's
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify -std=c++98 %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify -std=c++11 %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify -std=c++14 %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify -std=c++17 %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify -std=c++20 %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -verify -std=c++23 %s
+// RUN: %cl
Endilll wrote:
> It shouldn't be necessary to analyze uint64_t Storage directly through a
> debugger. It's handled via the Bitfield getters and setters. Is that not
> sufficient for debugging purposes?
Unfortunately, it's not. Not every debugger can run getters while displaying
the value (e.g
Endilll wrote:
The deep shade of blue doesn't make sense for both light and dark backgrounds:
It
Endilll wrote:
It looks a tinybit better in my local terminal, but still significantly harder
to read than the rest of the text:
But it's a bit off the point. We should pick colors that have good
Endilll wrote:
Ah, I see where the limitation comes from.
According to
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_escape_code#3-bit_and_4-bit),
there is bright blue color which many terminals display differently from
regular blue. While this means we're expanding 3-bit color palette to 4-b
Endilll wrote:
I also got in touch with Compiler Explorer devs. They should be able to pick a
better color to render ANSI blue.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/66514
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.
https://github.com/Endilll created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79981
Covers CWG issues 1150, 1487, 1567, 1738, 2273, 2277, 2356, 2504.
On top of the wording in proposed resolutions,
[P0136R1](https://wg21.link/p0136r1) "Rewording inheriting constructors (core
issue 1941 et al)"
Endilll wrote:
I cleaned up the reviewers. I suggest to use `git merge` next time you need to
bring your PR up to date with `main`. We are not worried about merge commits,
as squash is the only available merge option for PRs.
I also suggest to use "Start review" button when you respond to mult
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77637
>From 545ee4900e48b186e1c9fff93dc62a459ee19754 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:27:53 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] [clang] Add test for CWG1807
The test checks that objec
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77637
>From 545ee4900e48b186e1c9fff93dc62a459ee19754 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:27:53 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] [clang] Add test for CWG1807
The test checks that objec
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77637
>From 545ee4900e48b186e1c9fff93dc62a459ee19754 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:27:53 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/7] [clang] Add test for CWG1807
The test checks that objec
Endilll wrote:
Following the suggestion from @nikic, I prepared two variants of the same test,
one hard-written, and one using `update_cc_test_checks.py` (with heavy manual
editing afterwards). Hand-written:
```
// CHECK-LABEL: define dso_local void @dr1807::f()
// CHECK: invo
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77637
>From 545ee4900e48b186e1c9fff93dc62a459ee19754 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 20:27:53 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/7] [clang] Add test for CWG1807
The test checks that objec
@@ -132,6 +142,36 @@ namespace dr2126 { // dr2126: 12
#endif
}
+namespace dr2137 { // dr2137: 18
+#if __cplusplus >= 201103L
+ struct Q {
+Q();
+Q(Q&&);
+Q(std::initializer_list) = delete; // since-cxx11-note 2 {{has been
explicitly marked deleted here}}
+ };
+
https://github.com/Endilll requested changes to this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77768
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77768
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -2871,7 +2871,7 @@ C++ defect report implementation
status
https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/472.html";>472
drafting
Casting across protected inheritance
-Not resolved
+No
Endilll wrote:
Current state of things is my fault (I was t
https://github.com/Endilll created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78040
Test is based on [P0136R1](https://wg21.link/p0136r1) wording instead of
proposed resolution in the issue itself.
This patch also expands related CWG1573 test with an additional test case.
Existing `3.9` status
Endilll wrote:
I was way too deep into P0136R1 [Rewording inheriting constructors (core issue
1941 et al)](https://wg21.link/p0136r1) when I realized Richard has written
tests for all issues covered there long ago. So I decided to carry on and check
whether those tests would benefit from addit
https://github.com/Endilll approved this pull request.
Looks perfect to me now. Thank you!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77768
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commi
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78040
>From 62620337b64c64535d76c5003f9acd450ab527f7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:32:37 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang] Add test for CWG1350
Test is based on [P0136R1]
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78041
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll commented:
C++ DR test changes look good to me.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78041
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ template struct S {}; // #dr1801-S
S V; // #dr1801-S-i
// cxx98-14-error@-1 {{non-type template argument does not refer to any
declaration}}
// cxx98-14-note@#dr1801-S {{template parameter is declared here}}
-// since-cxx17-error@#dr1801-S-i {{non-type tem
https://github.com/Endilll commented:
DR testing part looks fine.
I'm worried there are no regular tests. It's also not clear what happens in 98
mode. New code doesn't seem to care about language mode.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78060
_
Endilll wrote:
> Initializer list syntax isn't available in C++98 mode (even as an extension?
> I can't find the option)
I'm not confident enough to properly review your changes, but my line of
thinking is the following: `void()` is available in all language modes, but
you're adding C++11-spe
Endilll wrote:
> Looking at other places, it looks like init-list stuff is guarded behind
> getLangOpts().CPlusPlus11, so I'll add that check.
Corentin told me offline that check for list initialization that you do might
be sufficient, as it can't pass in 98.
> It looks like this DR is CD5 (a
Endilll wrote:
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78060
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78040
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Endilll wrote:
CI fails on formatting in unrelated files, so I'm going to ignore it:
```
t=1704988008448 + echo '*** Checking for trailing whitespace left in Clang
source files ***'
t=1704988008448 *** Checking for trailing whitespace left in Clang source files
***
t=1704988008448 + grep -rnI '
https://github.com/Endilll closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77444
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78095
GCC has changed over the past decade.
Fixes #51472
>From 1aca1cd3be8209675b8aa3b79b2d626ad9f3c559 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 14:11:16 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] [clang]
https://github.com/Endilll created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78103
C++14 introduced deduced return type for regular functions, but shortly after
[CWG1878](https://wg21.link/cwg1878) was filed and resolved to disallow deduced
return types in conversion function templates. So thi
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78103
>From 522c7dff31a6f63995877674f9f4282ae60f7aaa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 19:45:04 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang] Implement CWG1878 "`operator auto` template"
C+
@@ -11322,9 +11322,22 @@ Decl
*Sema::ActOnConversionDeclarator(CXXConversionDecl *Conversion) {
<< ClassType << ConvType;
}
- if (FunctionTemplateDecl *ConversionTemplate
-= Conversion->getDescribedFunctionTemplate())
+ if (FunctionTe
Endilll wrote:
LGTM, but wair for other reviewers.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71313
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Endilll wrote:
> The logic is that this is a pretty big hole in our C++20 support and I don't
> think it's reasonable to try a merge after the deadline for 18. WDYT?
>From our past experience with release managers, they seem quite generous with
>deadlines to merge stuff in, as long as maintain
@@ -1157,19 +1156,16 @@ existed.
#if foo
#endif foo // warning: extra tokens at end of #endif directive
- #pragma clang diagnostic push
- #pragma clang diagnostic ignored "-Wextra-tokens"
+ #pragma GCC diagnostic push
+ #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wextra-tokens"
Endilll wrote:
Yeah, I remember I was able to get past the first round of test failures, only
to find another one waiting for me.
Once again I need to sit and debug AST serizalization and deserialization, but
I've been occupied with other stuff since then.
I'm not giving up on this just yet, as
https://github.com/Endilll approved this pull request.
LGTM. I believe we can go ahead with this even if discussion about raising
minimum Python version is not going anywhere. Better test 3.7 and 3.11 than
just 3.11 anyway.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77219
__
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78095
>From 1aca1cd3be8209675b8aa3b79b2d626ad9f3c559 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 14:11:16 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [clang] Remove outdated parts of documentation for
#pra
Endilll wrote:
I documented that we don't support unpaired `pop` (tracked in #23065) and
enabling diagnostics that are not enabled via CLI (tracked in #78418).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78095
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@li
https://github.com/Endilll commented:
Looks good overall.
It's good that you wrote your own tests, but it would also be nice to mirror
tests in `clang/unittests/libclang/LibclangTest.cpp` which test the same API.
This way we can identify issues in binding layer itself (when C++ tests pass,
but
@@ -11792,6 +11792,32 @@ static bool CheckMultiVersionFunction(Sema &S,
FunctionDecl *NewFD,
OldDecl, Previous);
}
+static void CheckFunctionDeclarationAttributesUsage(Sema &S,
+Funct
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78200
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78200
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Endilll wrote:
> I'd qualify this as a regression, by looking at that the commit was supposed
> to be an NFC.
Could you please confirm @Endilll?
I'll leave to @AaronBallman to decide whether this is a functional change, but
I can confirm that patch is working as intended, because there is an i
Endilll wrote:
> I agree this stretches the definition of NFC commit.
But it was dully reviewed and approved
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71322
I agree with this assessment. I think it really started as regular NFC, but
then me and Aaron realized that we can get rid of some ugly c
https://github.com/Endilll approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77753
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Endilll wrote:
> The enum we had in the past described the syntax of the new expression.
Even if it was the case at some point, I'm not sure it held when I created the
PR, which eliminated this kind of nasty mapping, encoding how this enum was
actually used:
```cpp
CXXNewExprBits.StoredInitia
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78103
>From 522c7dff31a6f63995877674f9f4282ae60f7aaa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 19:45:04 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [clang] Implement CWG1878 "`operator auto` template"
C+
@@ -686,3 +686,19 @@ auto f(auto x) { // cxx14-error {{'auto' not allowed in
function prototype}}
}
}
+
+struct DeducedTargetTypeOfConversionFunction {
+ operator auto() const { return char(); }
+ operator const auto() const { return float(); }
Endilll wrot
@@ -11322,9 +11322,22 @@ Decl
*Sema::ActOnConversionDeclarator(CXXConversionDecl *Conversion) {
<< ClassType << ConvType;
}
- if (FunctionTemplateDecl *ConversionTemplate
-= Conversion->getDescribedFunctionTemplate())
+ if (FunctionTe
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78103
>From 522c7dff31a6f63995877674f9f4282ae60f7aaa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 19:45:04 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [clang] Implement CWG1878 "`operator auto` template"
C+
https://github.com/Endilll closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77637
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78103
>From 522c7dff31a6f63995877674f9f4282ae60f7aaa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 19:45:04 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] [clang] Implement CWG1878 "`operator auto` template"
C+
https://github.com/Endilll updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78103
>From 522c7dff31a6f63995877674f9f4282ae60f7aaa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 19:45:04 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] [clang] Implement CWG1878 "`operator auto` template"
C+
@@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ struct Bad2 { int a, b; };
} // namespace dr2386
namespace std {
template struct tuple_size;
-template <> struct std::tuple_size {};
Endilll wrote:
Is this a really necessary change?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78595
___
@@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ struct Bad2 { int a, b; };
} // namespace dr2386
namespace std {
template struct tuple_size;
-template <> struct std::tuple_size {};
Endilll wrote:
Is this warning emitted if we spell it `::std::tuple)size`?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-p
https://github.com/Endilll edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78595
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: 2024-01-18T20:25:18+03:00
New Revision: 30da0f5a359ab4a684c5fdf0f4dbed20bae10f99
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/30da0f5a359ab4a684c5fdf0f4dbed20bae10f99
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/30da0f5a359ab4a684c5fdf0f4dbed20bae10f99.
Endilll wrote:
@nico I tried to address this in 30da0f5a359ab4a684c5fdf0f4dbed20bae10f99
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77637
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Author: Vlad Serebrennikov
Date: 2024-01-18T22:22:38+03:00
New Revision: a7588bb9bab43420f1c2642c80489f74af88f855
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a7588bb9bab43420f1c2642c80489f74af88f855
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a7588bb9bab43420f1c2642c80489f74af88f855.
Endilll wrote:
@mysterymath It's a bit of a shame to admit that I missed the first half of RUN
lines in the previous follow-up. Should be fixed now by
a7588bb9bab43420f1c2642c80489f74af88f855
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/77637
___
cfe-co
Endilll wrote:
@frederick-vs-ja PR description is going to be used as a commit message. You
can edit it. Let me know when it's ready.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68846
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://list
https://github.com/Endilll commented:
Changes to DR tests look good.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78720
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/Endilll created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78793
This is a follow up to https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71417 , which
aims to resolve concerns brought up there. Namely, this patch replaces
`CXXNewInitializationStyle::Implicit` with a dedicated `HasIn
501 - 600 of 2136 matches
Mail list logo
