When the replacement text is already a negated rexpression, `!expr`, and we're
negating it again, use `expr`, not `!!expr` as the replacement.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D9810
Files:
clang-tidy/readability/SimplifyBooleanExprCheck.cpp
clang-tidy/readability/SimplifyBooleanExprCheck.h
test/cl
Hi rsmith, faisalv, fraggamuffin,
This adds a commented-out line which would otherwise enable
`__has_feature` and `__has_extension` queries for the Concepts TS and an
equally commented-out section on the Clang Language Extensions page.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D9964
Files:
docs/LanguageExtensio
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D9810#174289, @LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D9810#174276, @LegalizeAdulthood wrote:
>
> > It all compiles, but manual testing with clang-query shows the problem.
> > See https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23552 for details.
>
>
> There's als
After sorting out some things with the clang tree for testing, I discovered
that the code had errors. This diff corrects them.
Specifically `compoundStmt(hasAnySubstatement(ifStmt()))` will always match the
first `if` statement in a compound statement. The matcher will not be invoked
for each
Hi Logan,
I imagine this is the result of our discussion on how to merge the two
exception handling mechanisms. It's been a long while since the last time I
checked the unwinder code, so I'm not going to opine on it, but if both you and
Anton are happy with it, so am I.
cheers,
--renato
http
And I imagine that this will also fix the problem we had earlier with undefined
__gnu_unwind_frame, right?
If that's so, this one also looks good to me.
Thanks for the work!
--renato
http://reviews.llvm.org/D9962
EMAIL PREFERENCES
http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
Hi asl, rengolin, danalbert, compnerd, joerg,
As a step to fix libunwind unw_step(), a new function
__gnu_unwind_frame() has been introduced to libunwind, and it is
required to use this function so that some libunwind internal data
structure can be updated properly.
Depends On: D9961
http://revi
Hi asl, rengolin, danalbert, compnerd,
This commit fixes the unw_step() for ARM EHABI. However, this commit
also changes the implementation details for ARM EHABI.
The first change is that the personality function should call
__gnu_unwind_frame() for default (or de facto) frame unwinding based on
I agree that we should be respecting the `__attribute__((nonnull))` on these
functions whether or not we emit them as builtin calls; as such, it makes sense
to me for this to be under `-fsanitize=nonnull-attribute`. A couple of minor
copy-paste issues and then this looks fine to me, but please w
On 24 May 2015 4:57 pm, "Nuno Lopes" wrote:
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D9673#170543, @samsonov wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D9673#170474, @nlopes wrote:
>
> > > Wait a second, won't UBSan handle this automatically if
> > > memcpy/memmove are
> >
> > > declared with __attribute__((non
Made some changes to follow Paul's review:
Added another test for static variables, based on the example from Bug 19238.
Moved some common code to a new helper function.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D9760
Files:
lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.cpp
lib/CodeGen/CGDebugInfo.h
lib/CodeGen/CGDecl.cpp
test
On 24 May 2015 4:57 pm, "Nuno Lopes" wrote:
>
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D9673#170543, @samsonov wrote:
>
> > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D9673#170474, @nlopes wrote:
> >
> > > > Wait a second, won't UBSan handle this automatically if
memcpy/memmove are
> > >
> > > > declared with __attribute__(
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D9673#170543, @samsonov wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D9673#170474, @nlopes wrote:
>
> > > Wait a second, won't UBSan handle this automatically if memcpy/memmove
> > > are
> >
> > > declared with __attribute__((nonnull)) in the header? Otherwise, is
> > > there
REPOSITORY
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D9673
EMAIL PREFERENCES
http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Hi alexfh,
misc-static-assert now recognizes __builtin_expect based assert macros.
I also added __builtin_expect to the white list of misc-assert-side-effect.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D9959
Files:
clang-tidy/misc/AssertSideEffectCheck.cpp
clang-tidy/misc/StaticAssertCheck.cpp
test/clang-ti
15 matches
Mail list logo