jroelofs accepted this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D30340
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
jroelofs accepted this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D30339
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30339#685919, @rmaprath wrote:
> Perhaps change `config.h` and remove the definition there and adjust other
> places accordingly?
>
> The current form is very easy to trip over.
Eric's point is that LIBCXXABI_BAREMETAL is a 0/1 flag, not
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30339#685888, @EricWF wrote:
> isn't this incorrect because `config.h` always defines LIBCXX_BAREMETAL?
Oh, right, it needs to be:
#if !LIBCXXABI_BAREMETAL || !defined(NDEBUG)
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D30339
jroelofs added inline comments.
Comment at: include/clang/Driver/Options.td:1613
def mcpu_EQ : Joined<["-"], "mcpu=">, Group;
+def mmcu_EQ : Joined<["-"], "mmcu=">, Group;
def mdynamic_no_pic : Joined<["-"], "mdynamic-no-pic">, Group;
Would it make sense to
jroelofs accepted this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29817
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
jroelofs created this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: aemerson.
The idea for this originated from a really tricky bug: ISRs on ARM don't
automatically save off the VFP regs, so if say, memcpy gets interrupted and the
ISR itself calls memcpy, the regs are left clobbered when the ISR is
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28820#649384, @rengolin wrote:
> Seems like a very specific corner case on ARM, but is that attribute
> guaranteed to be ARM-only?
>
> If so, LGTM as is. If not, avoid mentioning "VFP" on the error message.
Yeah, the attribute is parsed
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28820#649770, @efriedma wrote:
> > There would be a big performance penalty for ISRs with callees that don't
> > use VFP regs.
>
> Sacrificing correctness for the sake of performance seems like a bad idea...
I don't quite see it that way,
jroelofs closed this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
r292375
https://reviews.llvm.org/D28820
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28820#649726, @efriedma wrote:
> Why can't the compiler handle this case itself transparently? According to
> your description, the interrupt calling convention is different from the
> normal hard-float AAPCS calling convention: the VFP
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28820#649738, @jroelofs wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28820#649726, @efriedma wrote:
>
> > Why can't the compiler handle this case itself transparently? According to
> > your description, the interrupt calling convention is
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30158#690032, @madsravn wrote:
> Looks good for the two tests the are for `random_shuffle` in llvm libc++.
There were a lot more some time ago, before @mclow.lists performed this
transformation on libc++'s testsuite. You might want to try
jroelofs added a subscriber: rengolin.
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27123#616887, @saaadhu wrote:
> Make defines for CHAR16_TYPE, {U,}INT_{LEAST,FAST}16_TYPE use int instead of
> short.
>
> {U,}INT16_TYPE still gets defined as short though -
>
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27123#614313, @saaadhu wrote:
> Add testcases to test/Preprocessor/init.c
Awesome, thanks!
> Correct types for WChar and WInt
>
> The ABI is documented in the avr-gcc wiki (https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/avr-gcc)
> I took the output of a
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27123#617118, @jroelofs wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27123#616887, @saaadhu wrote:
>
> > Make defines for CHAR16_TYPE, {U,}INT_{LEAST,FAST}16_TYPE use int instead
> > of short.
> >
> > {U,}INT16_TYPE still gets defined as short
jroelofs accepted this revision.
jroelofs added a reviewer: jroelofs.
jroelofs added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D25314
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
jroelofs added a comment.
LGTM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27005
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs added a comment.
Testcase?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D28346
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27123#615738, @saaadhu wrote:
> Thanks, setting DoubleFormat and LongDoubleFormat fixed the __DBL_ and
> __LDBL_ differences. Also, setting SigAtomicType fixed the __SIG_ATOMIC_
> differences as well. I've added those defines to the test.
jroelofs created this revision.
Dimitri, do you mind hosting another docs builder on your machine?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31422
Files:
buildbot/osuosl/master/config/builders.py
zorg/buildbot/builders/SphinxDocsBuilder.py
Index: zorg/buildbot/builders/SphinxDocsBuilder.py
jroelofs added a comment.
Review for adding a builder in: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31422
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31375
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31375#711839, @EricWF wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31375#710897, @jroelofs wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31375#710891, @compnerd wrote:
> >
> > > What happens when you try building it in tree?
> >
> >
> > The
jroelofs closed this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
r298922
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31375
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31375#712152, @jroelofs wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31375#711839, @EricWF wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31375#710897, @jroelofs wrote:
> >
> > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31375#710891, @compnerd wrote:
> > >
> > > >
jroelofs updated this revision to Diff 93075.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31375
Files:
CMakeLists.txt
docs/BuildingLibunwind.rst
docs/CMakeLists.txt
docs/README.txt
docs/conf.py
docs/index.rst
Index: docs/index.rst
===
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31375#710891, @compnerd wrote:
> What happens when you try building it in tree?
The docs-libunwind-html target is missing, and the docs don't get built.
Comment at: docs/index.rst:82
+
+If you want to contribute a patch
jroelofs updated this revision to Diff 93074.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31375
Files:
CMakeLists.txt
docs/BuildingLibunwind.rst
docs/CMakeLists.txt
docs/README.txt
docs/conf.py
docs/index.rst
Index: docs/index.rst
===
jroelofs created this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: mgorny.
I'm still iffy about the build goop for this. I started mostly cargo-culting
the stuff from libcxx, but couldn't get that to work. What's in the patch seems
to work for the standalone build, but does not work for in tree builds
jroelofs closed this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
r299003
https://reviews.llvm.org/D31422
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs added inline comments.
Comment at: test/sanitizer_common/CMakeLists.txt:7
set(SUPPORTED_TOOLS)
-if(CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME MATCHES "Darwin|Linux|FreeBSD" AND NOT ANDROID)
+if(CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME MATCHES "Darwin|Linux|FreeBSD" AND NOT ANDROID AND
+ COMPILER_RT_HAS_ASAN)
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30158#702760, @madsravn wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30158#699342, @jroelofs wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30158#699132, @madsravn wrote:
> >
> > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30158#698871, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> > >
>
jroelofs closed this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
r297756
https://reviews.llvm.org/D30945
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D29818#700949, @ed wrote:
> Worth mentioning: the latest version of macOS now supports `clock_gettime()`.
> Maybe better to leave the code as is and simply axe the Mach time code at
> some point in the future?
Supporting only the latest
jroelofs added a comment.
The 0th build seems to have been successful:
http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/libunwind-sphinx-docs/builds/0
That being said, I did have to kick it off manually. I'll make a no-op change
later this afternoon, and see if the builder picks it up.
jroelofs accepted this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM
Comment at: include/clang/Driver/Options.td:1613
def mcpu_EQ : Joined<["-"], "mcpu=">, Group;
+def mmcu_EQ : Joined<["-"], "mmcu=">, Group;
def mdynamic_no_pic :
jroelofs added a comment.
I think you'd have to check for a maximum host SDK version, and then bump it
upstream every time there's a new one thats known to work with the then-current
trunk.
It can't be done based on language features because by definition, one cannot
know what features are
jroelofs added a comment.
This doesn't forbid assigning them to block properties... is that intentional?
typedef void (^Block)(int);
@interface Foo
@property Block B;
@end
void foo(Foo *f, Block __attribute__((noescape)) b) {
f.B = b;
}
Comment at:
jroelofs added inline comments.
Comment at: utils/libcxx/test/config.py:387
+self.config.available_features.add(
+'with_system_cxx_lib=%s' % component)
mehdi_amini wrote:
> jroelofs wrote:
> > Is it worth filtering out
jroelofs added inline comments.
Comment at: utils/libcxx/test/config.py:289
+def configure_availability(self):
+# FIXME doc
+self.with_availability = self.get_lit_bool('with_availability', False)
Can you expand on what the FIXME here wants?
jroelofs created this revision.
These tests are breaking when tested under the upstream 3.8.1 release + the
10.12 / 16C58 sdk. They use headers from the host SDKs, so they are not stable
with respect to adding new language features, such as class `@properties`.
Regression tests should not
jroelofs added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGDecl.cpp:1911
+if (auto Nullability = Ty->getNullability(getContext())) {
+ if (Nullability && *Nullability == NullabilityKind::NonNull) {
+SanitizerScope SanScope(this);
aprantl wrote:
>
jroelofs requested changes to this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
As I said on https://reviews.llvm.org/D30214, it is inappropriate to be
installing libc++ in the resource directory... please **do not** do that.
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30214#690375, @Hahnfeld wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30214#690010, @jroelofs wrote:
>
> > libc++ headers should not be installed in the resource dir.
>
>
> They are currently not by default. But with https://reviews.llvm.org/D30015
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30514#690318, @mehdi_amini wrote:
> LGTM.
>
> (It seems that having libc++ and libc++abi in the same repo would help
> sharing code like this)
I think it would be a step backwards in terms of opening things up for layering
violations. We
jroelofs added a comment.
Can the null check be performed in the callee?
That'd make this check work for a few more cases that this patch doesn't cover:
- `performSelector:` messages
- messages to `id`.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D30599
___
jroelofs accepted this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM, by the way.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D30599
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30733#697313, @Hahnfeld wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30733#697108, @jroelofs wrote:
>
> > As I said on https://reviews.llvm.org/D30214, it is inappropriate to be
> > installing libc++ in the resource directory... please **do not**
jroelofs added a comment.
I'll also add that we had a BOF at EuroLLVM 2014, where this got support from
the community and people generally thought it was a good plan... Just needed
someone to follow through with it.
We (wearing my CodeSourcery hat) said we would do so, but have been making
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28820#695356, @tyomitch wrote:
> When compiling for softfp targets, this new warning doesn't make sense: there
> are no VFP registers to save.
> Jonathan, would you please conditionalize it to only affect hardfp targets?
Sure, I can do
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30158#699132, @madsravn wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30158#698871, @aaron.ballman wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30158#696534, @madsravn wrote:
> >
> > > Any updates on this?
> >
> >
> > Have you run it over the test
jroelofs created this revision.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D30945
Files:
include/clang/Parse/Parser.h
lib/Parse/ParseOpenMP.cpp
lib/Parse/ParseStmt.cpp
Index: lib/Parse/ParseStmt.cpp
===
--- lib/Parse/ParseStmt.cpp
+++
jroelofs added a comment.
I think this might miss loads from bitfield ivars. Also, what about the
conversion that happens for properties whose backing ivar is a bitfield? (or
does that happen in the runtime? can't remember)
Comment at: test/CodeGenObjC/ubsan-bool.m:25
+ //
jroelofs added a comment.
libc++ headers should not be installed in the resource dir.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D30214
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs accepted this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM
Comment at: test/CodeGenObjC/ubsan-bool.m:26
+ // OBJC: [[ICMP:%.*]] = icmp ule i8 [[ASHR]], 1, !nosanitize
+ // OBJC: call void
jroelofs added a comment.
Can you clarify the logic here? It's my understanding that:
`-fno-exceptions` does *not* imply `-fno-unwind-tables`
however:
`-fno-unwind-tables` *does* imply that exceptions cannot be used on targets
that require the tables to do unwinding.
jroelofs added a comment.
Does the unwinder need this too?
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D35542
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs added inline comments.
Comment at: cmake/caches/Android-stage2.cmake:37
+ set(RUNTIMES_${target}-linux-android_COMPILER_RT_INCLUDE_TESTS OFF CACHE
BOOL "")
+ set(RUNTIMES_${target}-linux-android_LLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS ON CACHE BOOL "")
+
jroelofs added inline comments.
Comment at: cmake/caches/Android-stage2.cmake:37
+ set(RUNTIMES_${target}-linux-android_COMPILER_RT_INCLUDE_TESTS OFF CACHE
BOOL "")
+ set(RUNTIMES_${target}-linux-android_LLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS ON CACHE BOOL "")
+
jroelofs added inline comments.
Comment at: test/lit.cfg:36
+else:
+lit_config.fatal('Could not find libcxx test directory for test imports'
+ ' in: %s' % libcxx_test_src_root)
manojgupta wrote:
> I do not have libcxx checked out since I
jroelofs added inline comments.
Comment at: test/lit.cfg:36
+else:
+lit_config.fatal('Could not find libcxx test directory for test imports'
+ ' in: %s' % libcxx_test_src_root)
manojgupta wrote:
> jroelofs wrote:
> > manojgupta wrote:
> >
jroelofs accepted this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D35426
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
jroelofs accepted this revision.
jroelofs added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChains/Fuchsia.cpp:134
+static std::string computeTriple(llvm::Triple Triple) {
+ SmallString<64> T;
`normalizeTriple`
jroelofs closed this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
r307266
https://reviews.llvm.org/D35038
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs created this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: mgorny.
Mostly cargo-culted from libcxxabi, since the unwinder was forked from there in
the first place.
Might still be some cruft that's only applicable to libcxxabi in here, so let
me know if you spot anything like that. I killed
jroelofs added a comment.
Ping.
@arphaman I'd like to remove them, absent a concrete plan to fix this from
folks with a vested interest in them (i.e. you).
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32178
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
jroelofs added a comment.
ping @arphaman
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32178
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs planned changes to this revision.
jroelofs added inline comments.
Comment at: cmake/caches/BaremetalARM.cmake:1
+set(LLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD ARM CACHE STRING "")
+
compnerd wrote:
> Please rename this file to `BareMetalARMv6.cmake`. (I'm interested in
jroelofs added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChains/BareMetal.h:42
+
+ const char *getDefaultLinker() const override { return "ld.lld"; }
+
compnerd wrote:
> I think that this really should be `ld` still, as that is the canonical name
> for the
jroelofs updated this revision to Diff 99350.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33259
Files:
cmake/caches/BaremetalARM.cmake
lib/Driver/CMakeLists.txt
lib/Driver/Driver.cpp
lib/Driver/ToolChains/BareMetal.cpp
lib/Driver/ToolChains/BareMetal.h
jroelofs marked 2 inline comments as done.
jroelofs added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChains/BareMetal.cpp:107-108
+ArgStringList ) const {
+ CmdArgs.push_back("-lc++");
+ CmdArgs.push_back("-lc++abi");
+
jroelofs added a comment.
Sure. That'd be needed whether they stay, or get moved to test-suite.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32178
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs updated this revision to Diff 100131.
jroelofs added a comment.
implement feedback
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33259
Files:
cmake/caches/BaremetalARM.cmake
lib/Driver/CMakeLists.txt
lib/Driver/Driver.cpp
lib/Driver/ToolChains/BareMetal.cpp
lib/Driver/ToolChains/BareMetal.h
jroelofs marked 2 inline comments as done.
jroelofs added inline comments.
Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChains/BareMetal.cpp:110
+ SmallString<128> Dir(SysRoot);
+ llvm::sys::path::append(Dir, "include", "c++", "v1");
+ return Dir.str();
compnerd wrote:
> Is
jroelofs updated this revision to Diff 100177.
jroelofs marked an inline comment as done.
jroelofs added a comment.
Fix a cmake warning:
Platform/baremetal to use this system, please send your config file to
cm...@www.cmake.org so it can be added to cmake
Your CMakeCache.txt file was copied
jroelofs closed this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
r303873
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33259
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs added a comment.
@arphaman Those patches seem reasonable.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32178
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs updated this revision to Diff 99210.
jroelofs added a comment.
pass through linker flags, and remove my own paths from the test.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33259
Files:
cmake/caches/BaremetalARM.cmake
lib/Driver/CMakeLists.txt
lib/Driver/Driver.cpp
jroelofs created this revision.
Herald added subscribers: javed.absar, mgorny, rengolin, aemerson.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33259
Files:
cmake/caches/BaremetalARM.cmake
lib/Driver/CMakeLists.txt
lib/Driver/Driver.cpp
lib/Driver/ToolChains/BareMetal.cpp
jroelofs added a comment.
> I would expect this to changes wildly depending on the specific environment.
My assertion is that our default "specific environment" ought to cater to using
llvm's own tools... at least until someone comes along and says they actually
want `-fuse-ld=gcc`, or
jroelofs accepted this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM... thank you!
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33877
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33259#772184, @mgorny wrote:
> This causes a test failure with non-standard CLANG_RESOURCE_DIR:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33877
(thanks for the patch)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33259
___
jroelofs accepted this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM. Thanks for doing that... I totally forgot!
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32918
___
cfe-commits mailing list
jroelofs added a comment.
what about the builtins?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33561
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs added a comment.
Would be good to test for the presence/absence of the flag, too:
Comment at: test/libcxx/selftest/test.arc.pass.mm:10
+//===--===//
+
+int main()
```
#if
jroelofs accepted this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33049
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
jroelofs added inline comments.
Comment at: src/AddressSpace.hpp:521
unw_word_t *offset) {
-#ifndef _LIBUNWIND_IS_BAREMETAL
+#if !defined(_LIBUNWIND_IS_BAREMETAL) && !defined(_WIN32)
Dl_info dyldInfo;
Would it
jroelofs added a comment.
That reminds me... this does need a testcase or two.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D38599
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs added a comment.
I'm not sure it's better than writing the if/elseif/elseif/elseif out
explicitly :/
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37629
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
jroelofs closed this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
r312748
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37496
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs added a comment.
Sure. I'll commit it for you once this build/test cycle is finished.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37493
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs closed this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
r312651
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37493
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jroelofs added inline comments.
Comment at: src/AddressSpace.hpp:521
unw_word_t *offset) {
-#ifndef _LIBUNWIND_IS_BAREMETAL
+#if !defined(_LIBUNWIND_IS_BAREMETAL) && !defined(_WIN32)
Dl_info dyldInfo;
mstorsjo
jroelofs resigned from this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
I'm not sure I'm the right person to review this.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D38599
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
jroelofs accepted this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D38711
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
jroelofs added a comment.
Needs a docs entry for the new flag (in libcxx's BuildingLibcxx.rst). Other
than that, all the stuff I've asked you to add LGTM. I'd still appreciate
@EricWF/@mclow's opinion on the meat of the functional change part of this
though... I don't know all the implications
jroelofs accepted this revision.
jroelofs added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D38679
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D38599#893985, @danalbert wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D38599#893903, @jroelofs wrote:
>
> > That reminds me... this does need a testcase or two.
>
>
> Oh, also, any test I add is going to fail, since the case I'm trying to
> account
jroelofs added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D38599#893990, @jroelofs wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D38599#893985, @danalbert wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D38599#893903, @jroelofs wrote:
> >
> > > That reminds me... this does need a testcase or two.
> >
> >
> > Oh,
jroelofs added a comment.
looks fine to me, but this is the sort of thing that @EricWF usually wants the
final say on.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40775
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo