Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "consumeaft".
Did you mean:
consumeafter
2013 May 07
1
[LLVMdev] CommandLine: using cl::Positional with enum
...ion3, "..."), clEnumValEnd),);After that, the rest of arguments are also particular of the option selected as the first argument, i.e, the rest of arguments are related with the first one. So I thought I could independently parse these arguments with:cl::list<std::string> Argv (cl::ConsumeAfter, cl::desc("<program arguments>..."));But, doing this when I run:myTool option1 file.cpp --I got the next error:"error - this positional option will never be matched, because it does not Require a value and a cl::ConsumeAfter option is active!"So, I modify "OptionsLe...
2013 May 08
0
[LLVMdev] CommandLine: using cl::Positional with enum
...uot;..."),
clEnumValEnd)
);
After that, the rest of arguments are also particular of the option selected as the first argument, i.e, the rest of arguments are related with the first one. So I thought I could independently parse these arguments with:
cl::list<std::string> Argv (cl::ConsumeAfter, cl::desc("<program arguments>..."));
But, doing this when I run:
myTool option1 file.cpp --
I got the next error:
"error - this positional option will never be matched, because it does not Require a value and a cl::ConsumeAfter option is active!"
So, I modify "O...
2013 May 08
0
[LLVMdev] CommandLine: using cl::Positional with enum
...tion3, "..."), clEnumValEnd),);After that, the rest of arguments are also particular of the option selected as the first argument, i.e, the rest of arguments are related with the first one. So I thought I could independently parse these arguments with:cl::list<std::string> Argv (cl::ConsumeAfter, cl::desc("<program arguments>..."));But, doing this when I run:myTool option1 file.cpp --I got the next error:"error - this positional option will never be matched, because it does not Require a value and a cl::ConsumeAfter option is active!"So, I modify "OptionsLe...
2013 May 10
0
[LLVMdev] CommandLine: using cl::Positional with enum
...tion3, "..."), clEnumValEnd),);After that, the rest of arguments are also particular of the option selected as the first argument, i.e, the rest of arguments are related with the first one. So I thought I could independently parse these arguments with:cl::list<std::string> Argv (cl::ConsumeAfter, cl::desc("<program arguments>..."));But, doing this when I run:myTool option1 file.cpp --I got the next error:"error - this positional option will never be matched, because it does not Require a value and a cl::ConsumeAfter option is active!"So, I modify "OptionsLe...
2013 May 12
0
[LLVMdev] CommandLine: using cl::Positional with enum
...t;), clEnumValEnd),);After that, the rest of
> arguments are also particular of the option selected as the first argument,
> i.e, the rest of arguments are related with the first one. So I thought I
> could independently parse these arguments with:cl::list<std::string> Argv
> (cl::ConsumeAfter, cl::desc("<program arguments>..."));But, doing this when
> I run:myTool option1 file.cpp --I got the next error:"error - this
> positional option will never be matched, because it does not Require a value
> and a cl::ConsumeAfter option is active!"So, I modify...
2013 May 14
0
[LLVMdev] CommandLine: using cl::Positional with enum
...d),);After that, the rest of
>> arguments are also particular of the option selected as the first argument,
>> i.e, the rest of arguments are related with the first one. So I thought I
>> could independently parse these arguments with:cl::list<std::string> Argv
>> (cl::ConsumeAfter, cl::desc("<program arguments>..."));But, doing this when
>> I run:myTool option1 file.cpp --I got the next error:"error - this
>> positional option will never be matched, because it does not Require a value
>> and a cl::ConsumeAfter option is active!"S...
2007 Jul 05
2
[LLVMdev] PATCH (rest of code changes) "bytecode" --> "bitcode"
Here is the bulk of the sanitizing.
My residual doubts center around the question
whether we still do/want to support (un)compressed *byte*code
in 2.0/2.1.
I need a definitive word on this to proceed.
My understanding is that bytecode is already gone, but there are
still some functions/enums that really deal with *byte*code
(instead of *bit*code).
I did not touch those areas, so the attached