krytarowski added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D29256#660072, @ki.stfu wrote:
> I don't know the point of this patch (probably it's something special for
> NetBSD? @emaste) but I'm okay with that.
It's undefined (implementation defined) behavior.
C++11 5.2.2/7:
> Passing a potent
ki.stfu added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D29256#660159, @krytarowski wrote:
> It's undefined (implementation defined) behavior.
>
> C++11 5.2.2/7:
>
>
> > Passing a potentially-evaluated argument of class type having a
> > non-trivial copy constructor, a non-trivial move contr
krytarowski added a comment.
Hmm, I'm not reproducing it right now either. It's a patch added a year ago.
I've pinged Tobias.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29256
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://li
nitesh.jain updated this revision to Diff 86268.
nitesh.jain added a comment.
Added setUp/tearDown code, which saves and restores the original platform after
each run. Thanks
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29215
Files:
packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/functionalities/postmortem/minidump-new/TestMi
sylvestre.ledru abandoned this revision.
sylvestre.ledru added a comment.
Thanks!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D28155
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
krytarowski created this revision.
krytarowski added a project: LLDB.
The std::call_once implementation in libstdc++ has problems on few systems:
NetBSD, OpenBSD and Linux PPC. LLVM ships with a homegrown implementation
llvm::call_once to help on these platforms.
This change is required
krytarowski added a comment.
I can build and test this patch on NetBSD/amd64.
I don't have access right now to a performant FreeBSD, Linux, Android, Windows
and FreeBSD hosts to test build and execute tests for this patch on other
platforms. Please check.
I was in touch with `libstdc++` develo
mehdi_amini added a comment.
I'm fine with this change, but I'll leave the approval to one of the LLDB
developer :)
(Thanks for following-up with the libstdc++ on these platforms!)
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29288
___
lldb-co
clayborg requested changes to this revision.
clayborg added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Be very careful when using this, you can't change member variables that used to
be std::once to be statics. We also don't need the llvm namespace to be
included with "using names
krytarowski added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D29288#660636, @clayborg wrote:
> Be very careful when using this, you can't change member variables that used
> to be std::once to be statics. We also don't need the llvm namespace to be
> included with "using namespace llvm;" in many of
krytarowski added a comment.
namespace llvm {
namespace sys {
void MemoryFence();
#ifdef _MSC_VER
typedef long cas_flag;
#else
typedef uint32_t cas_flag;
#endif
cas_flag CompareAndSwap(volatile cas_flag* ptr,
cas_flag new_value,
mehdi_amini added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D29288#660677, @krytarowski wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D29288#660636, @clayborg wrote:
>
> > Be very careful when using this, you can't change member variables that
> > used to be std::once to be statics. We also don't need the l
krytarowski added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D29288#660703, @mehdi_amini wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D29288#660677, @krytarowski wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D29288#660636, @clayborg wrote:
> >
> > > Be very careful when using this, you can't change member variabl
EugeneBi added a comment.
So, what's now? Can somebody commit it, please?
I do not see any option to do it myself.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29095
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listi
joerg added a comment.
#include
#include
void f(std::string msg, ...) {
va_list ap;
va_start(ap, msg);
}
compiled against libc++ gives:
test.cc:6:3: error: cannot pass object of non-POD type 'std::string' (aka
'basic_string,
allocator >') through variadic function; call w
labath accepted this revision.
labath added a comment.
> Interesting. Passing to what? I thought it means we shouldn't pass
> non-trivial types through variadic arguments (... expression), and in this
> case we don't do it because CMIUtilString is the type of the parameter
> vFormating which h
labath requested changes to this revision.
labath added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
How much of the code is now actually different between the two classes? If the
only changes are of the s/linux/netbsd type, then we should just create a new
base class for the two, a
labath accepted this revision.
labath added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
I am glad we could come closer to the cause of the problem. At one point we
should have a common base class for all core tests, so that we don't have to do
this manually (and also avoid doing
18 matches
Mail list logo
