search for: gmacros

...m /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib.h:30, from /usr/include/glib-2.0/gobject/gbinding.h:28, from /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib-object.h:22, from /usr/include/libosinfo-1.0/osinfo/osinfo.h:28, from libosinfo-c.c:25: /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gmacros.h:1028:49: error: redefinition of 'glib_autoptr_clear_OsinfoList' 1028 | #define _GLIB_AUTOPTR_CLEAR_FUNC_NAME(TypeName) glib_autoptr_clear_##TypeName | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gmacros.h:1044:36: note: in expansio...

...lib.h:30, > from /usr/include/glib-2.0/gobject/gbinding.h:28, > from /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib-object.h:22, > from /usr/include/libosinfo-1.0/osinfo/osinfo.h:28, > from libosinfo-c.c:25: > /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gmacros.h:1028:49: error: redefinition of 'glib_autoptr_clear_OsinfoList' > 1028 | #define _GLIB_AUTOPTR_CLEAR_FUNC_NAME(TypeName) glib_autoptr_clear_##TypeName > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gmacros.h:1044:36: no...

...on project is" voice over ip" and i want to make codec to voice with speex-1.1.12 , i try to run it in my computer by" visual studio 6" but i have problems 1-i want to get exe file to speexdec&speexenc(i found missing files "glib.h, glibconfig.h, o gg/ogg.h, glib/gmacros.h , ogg_static.dsp" when i found it i have errors in the speexenc.c or speexdec) 2-i want enter voice file to test it in my computer thanks for your help Ahmed Gamil --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. -------...

Greetings everybody! I've created a patch to get compiz (upstream about 2 hours old) away from libsvg and libsvg-cairo. Those two libraries, which are regarded as "dead meat" by their initial developer Carl Worth, are replaced with librsvg 2.14.x (e.g. part of Gnome 2.14.x) by this patch. The patch is rather small and only touches these three files: compiz/configure.ac

Hi, I would like to implement macro debug info support in LLVM. Below you will find 4 parts: 1. Background on what does it mean to debug macros. 2. A brief explanation on how to represent macro debug info in DWARF 4.0. 3. The suggested design. 4. A full example: Source -> AST -> LLVM IR -> DWARF. Feel free to skip first two parts if you think you know the background.

> Do we really need to touch the AST? Or would it be reasonable to wire up the CGDebugInfo directly to the PPCallbacks, if it isn't already? (perhaps it is already wired up for other reasons?) This sound as a good idea, I will check that approach. PPCallbacks is only an interface, has nothing connected to it, but we will create a new class, which implement PPCallbacks, for macros. So we can

> Not necessarily, if we kept the macros in order in the list of macros attached to the CU, which I imagine we would. OK, now I understand what you are aiming for. I really do not favor one on the other. But, can you explain what is the advantage of the parent approach over the children approach? If any, the children approach seems to be the one reduces the LLVM IR size, is not it? Regards,

> Right - I was wondering if CGDebugInfo already implemented PPCallbacks or was otherwise being notified of PPCallback related things, possibly through a layer or two of indirection. I checked the approach of skipping representing macros in AST, and communicate them directly from Parser to CGDebugInfo. However, I could not find a way to initialize this communication. The only interface

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Aboud, Amjad <amjad.aboud at intel.com> wrote: > I found a way to skip representing macros in AST and create them directly > in CGDebugInfo through PPCallbacks during preprocessing. > > To do that, I needed to extend ASTConsumer interface with this extra > method: > > > > /// If the consumer is interested in notifications from

I'd like to jump in. I do not work on a preprocessor based language, but have the same code expansion problem to encode. Right now, we hack around the problem by appending some prefix after the file name and pretend it is a different file, which is not great. I understand you want to represent expansion by DIFileMacro ? I'm not how this is supposed to be used and it is not in the example.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:21 AM, David Blaikie via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Aboud, Amjad <amjad.aboud at intel.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I found a way to skip representing macros in AST and create them

A couple weeks ago I sat down with David Blaikie to figure out what we could trim when importing debug metadata during function importing. I have a prototype that reduces the resulting .o sizes significantly with ThinLTO -g. However, I ran into some issues when cleaning up part of this in preparation for a patch. Since Mehdi indicated that he and Adrian were going to be looking at this as well

...t needed in the importing module: change to nullptr > > Seems reasonable for -flto=thin (incorrect for -flto=full, though). > > > b) List of macros > > - Not needed in the importing module: change to nullptr > > We don't have macros by default, right? You need some -gmacros flag I > hope? I remember objecting to the massive debug info bloat when they were > introduced, but was convinced by an argument along the lines of > "it's-never-going-to-be-on-by-default". > Yes, it's off by default, but still good to think about whether we could d...

...Right, all this is for ThinLTO - I haven't thought about Full LTO as I am concerned about ThinLTO importing-specific bloat. > > > b) List of macros > > - Not needed in the importing module: change to nullptr > > We don't have macros by default, right? You need some -gmacros flag I > hope? I remember objecting to the massive debug info bloat when they were > introduced, but was convinced by an argument along the lines of > "it's-never-going-to-be-on-by-default". > No I haven't seen a case where this is non-null in my ThinLTO testing, but...