[PATCH] D129250: [clang-repl][NFC] Split weak symbol test to a new test

2022-07-07 Thread Jun Zhang via Phabricator via cfe-commits
This revision was landed with ongoing or failed builds. This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rGeee6a12227a6: [clang-repl][NFC] Split weak symbol test to a new test (authored by junaire). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE

[PATCH] D129250: [clang-repl][NFC] Split weak symbol test to a new test

2022-07-07 Thread Vassil Vassilev via Phabricator via cfe-commits
v.g.vassilev accepted this revision. v.g.vassilev added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D129250/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D129250

[PATCH] D129250: [clang-repl][NFC] Split weak symbol test to a new test

2022-07-07 Thread Jun Zhang via Phabricator via cfe-commits
junaire updated this revision to Diff 442902. junaire added a comment. extern printf so we can use, another copy paster mistake... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D129250/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D129250 Files:

[PATCH] D129250: [clang-repl][NFC] Split weak symbol test to a new test

2022-07-07 Thread Jun Zhang via Phabricator via cfe-commits
junaire updated this revision to Diff 442879. junaire added a comment. Correct copy paster error Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D129250/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D129250 Files: clang/test/Interpreter/execute-weak.cpp

[PATCH] D129250: [clang-repl][NFC] Split weak symbol test to a new test

2022-07-07 Thread Jun Zhang via Phabricator via cfe-commits
junaire created this revision. junaire added a reviewer: v.g.vassilev. Herald added a project: All. junaire requested review of this revision. Herald added a project: clang. Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits. Windows has some issues when we try to use `__attribute__((weak))` in JIT, so we