Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "davidbolvanski".
Did you mean:
davidbolvansky
2018 Sep 13
2
New warnings when building trunk with GCC 9
Hello,
GCC 9.0 introduces a new warning checkers and some of them found possible
issues in LLVM.
In file included from
/home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/LazyCallGraph.h:38,
from
/home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/unittests/Analysis/LazyCallGraphTest.cpp:10:
/home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/ArrayRef.h: In
instantiation of
2018 Sep 14
2
New warnings when building trunk with GCC 9
On 13/09/2018 18:22, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:13 AM Dávid Bolvanský via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/unittests/ExecutionEngine/Orc/CompileOnDemandLayerTest.cpp:79:40:
> required from here
>
2018 Sep 15
2
New warnings when building trunk with GCC 9
There is a new discussion related to -Wredundant-move warning on GCC
bugzilla.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87300
pi 14. 9. 2018 o 9:53 David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> napísal(a):
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:48 AM Stephan Bergmann <sbergman at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 13/09/2018 18:22, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote:
>>
2018 Sep 16
2
[cfe-dev] New warnings when building trunk with GCC 9
Yes, we should produce this warning in C++11 mode too. (I could be
misrecalling, but I think the rationale for the current behaviour is based
on historical GCC behaviour.)
On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, 10:04 David Blaikie via cfe-dev, <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Fair point made on that thread - that this is a DR, so technically the
> std::move is pessimizing even in C++11 mode.
2018 Sep 25
3
[cfe-dev] New warnings when building trunk with GCC 9
+ Erik, who implemented DR1579
Originally, I had the warning similar to GCC's warning, but took it out due
to not having DR1579 implemented in clang (warning changed in r243594)
Erik in r274291 implemented DR1579, although PR27785 didn't mention
anything about std::move
It looks like what's happening is that Clang and GCC handles the return
differently. Clang needs the std::move