search for: clangtool

...-" prefix is present in any of the arguments. ./prog <option1> | ( <option2> arg1 arg2) | ( <option3> arg1 ) The problem is clear: in this case, the arguments can't be optional. So I thought to delete all the "cl:opt" and process the arguments before calling: ClangTool Tool(OptionsParser.getCompilations(), OptionsParser.getSourcePathList()); in order to give an error if the arguments provided were not correct. But, if arguments are correct, then the next error is shown: warning: /home/user/clang-llvm/build/arg1: 'linker' input unused error: unable to ha...

...of the arguments. > > ./prog <option1> | ( <option2> arg1 arg2) | ( <option3> arg1 ) > > The problem is clear: in this case, the arguments can't be optional. So I > thought to delete all the "cl:opt" and process the arguments before calling: > > ClangTool Tool(OptionsParser.getCompilations(), > OptionsParser.getSourcePathList()); Oh you're using Clang stuff. I know nothing about this so I can't really help you here. > in order to give an error if the arguments provided were not correct. But, > if arguments are correct, then the n...

...t;> ./prog <option1> | ( <option2> arg1 arg2) | ( <option3> arg1 ) >> >> The problem is clear: in this case, the arguments can't be optional. So I >> thought to delete all the "cl:opt" and process the arguments before calling: >> >> ClangTool Tool(OptionsParser.getCompilations(), >> OptionsParser.getSourcePathList()); >> > Oh you're using Clang stuff. I know nothing about this so I can't > really help you here. > > >> in order to give an error if the arguments provided were not correct. But, >...

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Dmitry Mikushin <dmitry at kernelgen.org> wrote: > Hi Anton, > > I think it would be worth to remove this signature in the bottom line: > > Last modified: $Date: 2009/12/16 09:03:23 $ > > Otherwise, new people may think this page is long time abandoned :) It indicates that it *is* long-abandoned! We need to start actively adding to it.

...81/plugins/cpp_reparse/service/src/databasefilesystem.cpp#L191-L224> > > These files *do not necessarily* (in 99% of the cases, not at all) exist on the hard drive at the moment of the code wanting to pull the file, hence why we implemented this to give the file source buffer from DB. The ClangTool that needs this still gets the memoryFS for its own purposes, and for the clang libraries, the realFS is still under there. > > Perhaps the "Status" type could be extended to carry extra information? https://github.com/Ericsson/CodeCompass/blob/a1a7b10e3a9e2e4f493135ea68566cee54adc...

I'd like to get some more perspectives on the role of the VirtualFileSystem abstraction in llvm/Support. (The VFS layer has recently moved from Clang to LLVM, so crossposting to both lists) https://reviews.llvm.org/D54277 proposed adding a function to VirtualFileSystem to get the underlying "real file" path from a VFS path. LLDB is starting to use VFS for some filesystem

...but which of course then breakes the syntax... I think such "reserved" names like CLS that can be passed to the compiler(s), should be avoided as identifiers for naming variables, constants, enum members, macros etc. [2845/3381] Building CXX object tools/clang/lib/Tooling/CMakeFiles/clangTooling.dir/Execution.cpp.o FAILED: /usr/local/gcc-latest/bin/g++-latest -DEXPENSIVE_CHECKS -D_DEBUG -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG -D_GNU_SOURCE -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -D__STDC_FORMAT_MACROS -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -Itools/clang/lib/Frontend/Rewrite -I/sw/src/clang_llvm_dev/clang/lib/Frontend/Rewrite -I/sw/src/...

Hello everyone, 9.0.0-rc2 was tagged yesterday from the release_90 branch at r368683. In the Git monorepo it's available as the llvmorg-9.0.0-rc2 tag. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc2 Binaries will be added as they become available. The tag went in roughly one week behind schedule (see "Upcoming Releases" at https://llvm.org), but

On Jan 19, 2013, at 1:55 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > We're looking more at doing some serious hacking on LLD, and I'd like to avoid doing lots of work in the codebase only to change the style around later. > > My understanding was that LLD was always intended to be a fully integrated LLVM project much like Clang, with a shared coding standard to go with the shared support

Hello, I have tried a lot fix this error but am not able to can you please find me a solution am trying to compile the SAFECode in Cygwin Environment to work for windows. used make -j4 command to make the files in cygwin i have got this error make[5]: Leaving directory '/home/uidr7475/Work/LLVM_OBJ/projects/safecode/tools/clang/include' /usr/bin/cp: cannot stat

Greetings folks, We're looking more at doing some serious hacking on LLD, and I'd like to avoid doing lots of work in the codebase only to change the style around later. My understanding was that LLD was always intended to be a fully integrated LLVM project much like Clang, with a shared coding standard to go with the shared support libraries. Can we start that migration? I'm really

...developed initially to support the existing conventions in LLVM and Clang, and it would be a large (and of questionable utility) effort to add support for another convention as well. In essence, the desire for tools *also* advocates for the projects being consistent. [1] http://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangTools.html#clang-format But none of this argues that the LLVM style is The Right Style. If there are ways to improve the coding conventions with LLVM and Clang, we should absolutely do that. The projects remain small enough that if you can show a convention which is superior, we can easily adopt it fo...

Dear Clang/LLVM community! We (a group of 3 highly motivated CS grad students) are taking a class about compilers and optimizations. This class offers the option of doing a implementation project (instead of reading/writing x papers) for its main part. Of course hacking is much more fun than ... ;) So my question is do you know of any open points, compiler passes, optimizations in the LLVM /

...target clangRewrite [ 72%] Built target clangARCMigrate [ 72%] Built target ClangDriverOptions [ 75%] Built target clangDriver [ 75%] Built target clangSerialization [ 77%] Built target clangFrontend [ 77%] Built target clangRewriteFrontend [ 77%] Built target clangFrontendTool [ 77%] Built target clangTooling [ 77%] Built target clangToolingCore [ 77%] Built target clangToolingRefactor [ 77%] Built target clangIndex [ 78%] Built target clangStaticAnalyzerCore [ 83%] Built target clangStaticAnalyzerCheckers [ 83%] Built target clangStaticAnalyzerFrontend [ 83%] Built target clangFormat [ 85%] Built ta...

...t; [ 72%] Built target ClangDriverOptions >> [ 75%] Built target clangDriver >> [ 75%] Built target clangSerialization >> [ 77%] Built target clangFrontend >> [ 77%] Built target clangRewriteFrontend >> [ 77%] Built target clangFrontendTool >> [ 77%] Built target clangTooling >> [ 77%] Built target clangToolingCore >> [ 77%] Built target clangToolingRefactor >> [ 77%] Built target clangIndex >> [ 78%] Built target clangStaticAnalyzerCore >> [ 83%] Built target clangStaticAnalyzerCheckers >> [ 83%] Built target clangStaticAnalyzerFr...

...t;>> [ 75%] Built target clangDriver >>> [ 75%] Built target clangSerialization >>> [ 77%] Built target clangFrontend >>> [ 77%] Built target clangRewriteFrontend >>> [ 77%] Built target clangFrontendTool >>> [ 77%] Built target clangTooling >>> [ 77%] Built target clangToolingCore >>> [ 77%] Built target clangToolingRefactor >>> [ 77%] Built target clangIndex >>> [ 78%] Built target clangStaticAnalyzerCore >>> [ 83%] Built target clangStaticAnalyzerCheckers >&g...

...ilt target clangDriver >>>> [ 75%] Built target clangSerialization >>>> [ 77%] Built target clangFrontend >>>> [ 77%] Built target clangRewriteFrontend >>>> [ 77%] Built target clangFrontendTool >>>> [ 77%] Built target clangTooling >>>> [ 77%] Built target clangToolingCore >>>> [ 77%] Built target clangToolingRefactor >>>> [ 77%] Built target clangIndex >>>> [ 78%] Built target clangStaticAnalyzerCore >>>> [ 83%] Built target clangStaticAnalyze...

...er >>>>>> [ 75%] Built target clangSerialization >>>>>> [ 77%] Built target clangFrontend >>>>>> [ 77%] Built target clangRewriteFrontend >>>>>> [ 77%] Built target clangFrontendTool >>>>>> [ 77%] Built target clangTooling >>>>>> [ 77%] Built target clangToolingCore >>>>>> [ 77%] Built target clangToolingRefactor >>>>>> [ 77%] Built target clangIndex >>>>>> [ 78%] Built target clangStaticAnalyzerCore >>>>>> [ 83%] Built targe...

Trying to run a self host "ninja check-clang" with ASan enabled I hit a /lot/ of errors like this (strangely I hit none of these in check-llvm, only in check-clang): Any ideas? ==10525==ERROR: AddressSanitizer failed to deallocate 0x10800 (67584) bytes at address 0x631000014800 ==10525==AddressSanitizer CHECK failed:

...DS:STATIC= //Dependencies for target clangTidyReadabilityModule_LIB_DEPENDS:STATIC= //Dependencies for target clangTidySafetyModule_LIB_DEPENDS:STATIC= //Dependencies for target clangTidyUtils_LIB_DEPENDS:STATIC= //Dependencies for target clangTidy_LIB_DEPENDS:STATIC= //Dependencies for target clangToolingCore_LIB_DEPENDS:STATIC= //Dependencies for target clangTooling_LIB_DEPENDS:STATIC= //Dependencies for the target clang_rt.asan-dynamic-x86_64_LIB_DEPENDS:STATIC=general;c;general;dl;general;rt;general;pthread;general;stdc++; //Dependencies for target clang_rt.asan-preinit-x86_64_LIB_DEPENDS:S...