search for: sometools

Hi all, There have been a few cases recently where I've noticed two test cases in the same lit test that do the same thing except invert the CHECK, to show that something is NOT present. I'm talking about something like the following: # RUN: llvm-sometool --print-string | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=STRING # RUN: llvm-sometool --no-print-string | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=NO-STRING #

​Hi all, > I feel it might be confusing to have a CHECK becomes effectively a CHECK-NOT, > especially if the RUN line is far from the CHECK line (which is often the case when > a single RUN line drives several groups of CHECK directives (e.g. code generation > tested for several functions for a specific feature, like PIC). You also loose control > on where the NOT should be:

Thanks for the suggestions. I think the naming the whole line idea is okay, but it feels a bit clunky. Either we'd have to have a syntax that FileCheck would recognise without caring about the prefix (which seems to be against the ethos of FileCheck, and also makes it less flexible), or in the case I'm referring to, we'd have to have an extra line that does nothing other than define

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 7:27 PM Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > Even further off topic, in phab wishlist land: It'd be awesome if it > were capable of inferring extended patch context by looking at the svn > repo/git mirrors (rather than requiring the person submitting the patch > to re-upload with -U999). > Yea, this is hard, because detecting

...g library (WALL - http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/java/index.php) that implements a JSP tag library on top of WURFL - this makes it very easy to develop web applications that behave cleverly with the different devices out there. It handles WAP phones, XHTML browser and more. The WURFL project has sometools and examples in Ruby - http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/ruby/index.php. My problems is that as a newbie to both Ruby and Rails i do not know where to start? Is there something similar to JSP TAG libs? If not, can you ecommend better approaches? What I would like to do is to get the same ease-of-pr...

On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 10:02 AM Andrew Wilkins <axwalk at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 at 01:43 Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 7:27 PM Jonathan Roelofs < >> jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: >> >>> Even further off topic, in phab wishlist land: It'd be awesome if it >>> were

Hi All, I've been playing [1] with the newly introduced CMake interface for using exported LLVM CMake targets (e.g. the LLVMSupport library) in CMake projects and although it works there are a few things I think we should fix before the LLVM 3.5 release. Here are the current issues I see that I'd like to discuss. Just to clarify by "Targets" I mean targets in the CMake sense

Those seem to be comments by the original author? Is this a problem? On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:31 AM Tamas Berghammer <tberghammer at google.com> wrote: > Hi Manual, > > Since the Phabricator update I noticed that the username of the reviewer > isn't displayed for some comment added to the review (e.g.: > http://reviews.llvm.org/D11016). Can you check it out what is

>> I am happy to start writing a patch for the documentation > > Thanks. Please Cc me for review. Will do. >> # LLVM_BUILD_* values available only from LLVM build tree. > > Those were created to simplify building Clang locally against a > LLVM build tree. Clang needs the LLVM source and build trees too, > so this gives it that information. No information is

This might be slightly off topic, but I'd really like a way to be able to run the buildbots off a Phabricator Diff before committing. On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > Unfortunately threading will be broken for changes currently under review > (new patches shouldn't have the problem). > I'm very sorry for this inconvenience