Thanks and sorry about the trouble. I’ll recommit with size_t.
> On Nov 30, 2018, at 10:56 AM, Aaron Ballman <aa...@aaronballman.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 9:37 AM Artem Dergachev via Phabricator via > cfe-commits <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org>> > wrote: >> >> NoQ added inline comments. >> >> >> ================ >> Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/osobject-retain-release.cpp:27 >> + >> + static void * operator new(unsigned long size); >> + >> ---------------- >> NoQ wrote: >>> I think we should use `size_t` as much as possible, because this may >>> otherwise have weird consequences on platforms on which `size_t` is not >>> defined as `unsigned long`. Not sure if this checker is ran on such >>> platforms. But the test doesn't have the triple specified, so it runs under >>> the host triple, which may be arbitrary and cause problems on buildbots. >>> >>> I.e., >>> >>> ``` >>> typedef __typeof(sizeof(int)) size_t; >>> // use size_t >>> ``` >> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv8-lld/builds/440/steps/ninja%20check%202/logs/FAIL%3A%20Clang%3A%3Aosobject-retain-release.cpp > > I reverted r347949 through r347951 in r348020 to get the bots back to green. > > ~Aaron > >> >> >> Repository: >> rC Clang >> >> CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D55076/new/ <https://reviews.llvm.org/D55076/new/> >> >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D55076 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D55076> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits>
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
