On Aug 9, 2016, at 8:42 AM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
wrote:
> #2 could potentially be improved by lit style tests.
+1 to this.
> Again, the real question is just how much effort are we actually prepared to
> put into this? I'd love it if there were entire days or weeks that were just
>
> On Aug 9, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
> wrote:
>
> So perhaps it would be reasonable for us to standardize on something like
> this:
>
> Main Module Header
> Local/Private Headers
> lldb/...
> llvm/...
> System #includes
This makes sense to me, and matches what clang does
Thanks Pavel! I see the changes made in master branch.
By any change can these be back-ported to release38 and 39 branches? Since
llvm38 is the one aports is offering.
BR
From: Pavel Labath
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 1:24:12 PM
To: Dangling Pointer
Cc: lld
[earlier I had accidentally sent this message to only Hans, re-sending as
reply-all now]
When I tried rc1 on sles11.3 x86_64, msan's getrlimit test fails to build
for lack of prlimit(). SLES11.3 has glibc 2.11.3. Is there a minimum
required glibc? I think this test implementation previously use
Hi Greg
My comments are inlined:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Greg Clayton wrote:
>
> > On Aug 9, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Abhishek Aggarwal via lldb-dev <
> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hello all
> >
> > I have following 2 queries:
> >
> > 1. Can SB APIs of LLDB provide information rega
I've started to do some cleanup of the include header order (r278222).
It doesn't get everything compiling after a clang-format, but it got
me about half way.
+1 on the include order proposed by Zach. I agree that better
modularization would improve testability and have a positive impact on
the si
