search for: nodiscard

My 2 cents: get rid of LLVM_UNUSED_RESULT, and move to LLVM_NODISCARD. For compilers that support it, it should be a strict superset of features and functionality. The standard feature was written directly based on the clang warn_unused_result stuff. I would just migrate us onto the spelling and usage pattern that got standardized. All we have to lose are warnings...

...tarted to try to use llvm::Error recently. This has nice runtime checks for if you didn't check the result, but I thought it would be really nice to get a compiler warning for the obvious cases of this rather than having to wait for a runtime check. This, of course, is exactly what the C++17 [[nodiscard]] attribute is for - with new enough compilers in C++17 mode we can just declare the class like so: class [[nodiscard]] Error { ... }; So, I'd like to add an LLVM_NODISCARD macro to Compiler.h, and this is where it gets interesting. Pre-C++17, clang already allows __attribute__((warn_unused...

Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> writes: > Hi Justin, > > This SGTM generally, but please make the difference between > LLVM_NODISCARD and LLVM_UNUSED_RESULT clear in the code. :) Right, this is where it gets a little weird. LLVM_NODISCARD would be for types, whereas LLVM_UNUSED_RESULT would be for functions. Depending on your host compiler, using the wrong one might DTRT, but it won't across all compilers. Do you think docu...

If you are using XFS - there is mount option "discard|nodiscard" From XFS man page: discard|nodiscard Enable/disable the issuing of commands to let the block device reclaim space freed by the filesystem. This is useful for SSD devices, thinly provisioned LUNs and virtual machine images, but may have a performance impact. Not...

...te a btrfs filesystem [ \fB\-s\fP\fI sectorsize\fP ] [ \fB\-r\fP\fI rootdir\fP ] [ \fB\-K\fP ] +[ \fB\-O\fP\fI feature1,feature2,...\fP ] [ \fB\-h\fP ] [ \fB\-V\fP ] \fI device\fP [ \fIdevice ...\fP ] @@ -77,6 +78,14 @@ Specify a directory to copy into the newly created fs. \fB\-K\fR, \fB\-\-nodiscard \fR Do not perform whole device TRIM operation by default. .TP +\fB\-O\fR, \fB\-\-features \fIfeature1,feature2,...\fR +A list of filesystem features turned on at mkfs time. Not all features are +supported by old kernels. + +To see all run + +\fBmkfs.btrfs -O list-all\fR +.TP \fB\-V\fR, \fB\-\-v...

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 08:28:49AM -0500, Leroy Tennison wrote: > I realize this is wandering off-topic but, if you have found Debian commands, you're doing better than me. What are they? Also, are you allowing dd to totally fill the partition (what I have found on the web as a recommendation)? If so, is the OS surviving acceptably? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From:

...the arguments like \fBk\fP for KBytes, \fBm\fP for MBytes... diff --git a/mkfs.c b/mkfs.c index 5ece186..52e17e4 100644 --- a/mkfs.c +++ b/mkfs.c @@ -336,6 +336,7 @@ static void print_usage(void) fprintf(stderr, "\t -r --rootdir the source directory\n"); fprintf(stderr, "\t -K --nodiscard do not perform whole device TRIM\n"); fprintf(stderr, "\t -V --version print the mkfs.btrfs version and exit\n"); + fprintf(stderr, "\t -x --skinny-extents use the new skinny extent disk format"); fprintf(stderr, "%s\n", BTRFS_BUILD_VERSION); exit(1); } @@...

.../mkfs.c b/mkfs.c index 47f0c9c..2cc6051 100644 --- a/mkfs.c +++ b/mkfs.c @@ -349,6 +349,7 @@ static void print_usage(void) fprintf(stderr, "\t -s --sectorsize min block allocation\n"); fprintf(stderr, "\t -r --rootdir the source directory\n"); fprintf(stderr, "\t -K --nodiscard do not perform whole device TRIM\n"); + fprintf(stderr, "\t -V --version Print the mkfs.btrfs version and exit\n"); fprintf(stderr, "%s\n", BTRFS_BUILD_VERSION); exit(1); } -- 1.7.5.4 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"...

...hat are the main gains from allowing C++14? > * Variable templates > * Generalized constexpr > * Return-type Deduction > * Generic Lambdas > * std::make_unique<> (the source of many build bot breakages) > > > What are the main gains from allowing C++17? [1] > * [[nodiscard]] attribute > * structured bindings > * constexpr-if > * guaranteed copy elision > * numerous new library types: optional, string_view, variant, byte, > * numerous new algorithms: parallel algorithms, too many to list > * Probably some more, but I just tried to hit the biggest one...

...>> > * Generalized constexpr >> > * Return-type Deduction >> > * Generic Lambdas >> > * std::make_unique<> (the source of many build bot breakages) >> > >> > >> > What are the main gains from allowing C++17? [1] >> > * [[nodiscard]] attribute >> > * structured bindings >> > * constexpr-if >> > * guaranteed copy elision >> > * numerous new library types: optional, string_view, variant, byte, >> > * numerous new algorithms: parallel algorithms, too many to list >> > * Proba...

...> > * Variable templates > > * Generalized constexpr > > * Return-type Deduction > > * Generic Lambdas > > * std::make_unique<> (the source of many build bot breakages) > > > > > > What are the main gains from allowing C++17? [1] > > * [[nodiscard]] attribute > > * structured bindings > > * constexpr-if > > * guaranteed copy elision > > * numerous new library types: optional, string_view, variant, byte, > > * numerous new algorithms: parallel algorithms, too many to list > > * Probably some more, but I jus...

...> > * Variable templates > > * Generalized constexpr > > * Return-type Deduction > > * Generic Lambdas > > * std::make_unique<> (the source of many build bot breakages) > > > > > > What are the main gains from allowing C++17?  [1] > > * [[nodiscard]] attribute > > * structured bindings > > * constexpr-if > > * guaranteed copy elision > > * numerous new library types: optional, string_view, variant, byte, > > * numerous new algorithms: parallel algorithms, too many to list > > * Probably some more, but I jus...

...> > * Variable templates > > * Generalized constexpr > > * Return-type Deduction > > * Generic Lambdas > > * std::make_unique<> (the source of many build bot breakages) > > > > > > What are the main gains from allowing C++17? [1] > > * [[nodiscard]] attribute > > * structured bindings > > * constexpr-if > > * guaranteed copy elision > > * numerous new library types: optional, string_view, variant, byte, > > * numerous new algorithms: parallel algorithms, too many to list > > * Probably some more, but I jus...

...gt; > * Variable templates > > * Generalized constexpr > > * Return-type Deduction > > * Generic Lambdas > > * std::make_unique<> (the source of many build bot breakages) > > > > > > What are the main gains from allowing C++17? [1] > > * [[nodiscard]] attribute > > * structured bindings > > * constexpr-if > > * guaranteed copy elision > > * numerous new library types: optional, string_view, variant, byte, > > * numerous new algorithms: parallel algorithms, too many to list > > * Probably some more, but I jus...

...constexpr >>> > * Return-type Deduction >>> > * Generic Lambdas >>> > * std::make_unique<> (the source of many build bot breakages) >>> > >>> > >>> > What are the main gains from allowing C++17? [1] >>> > * [[nodiscard]] attribute >>> > * structured bindings >>> > * constexpr-if >>> > * guaranteed copy elision >>> > * numerous new library types: optional, string_view, variant, byte, >>> > * numerous new algorithms: parallel algorithms, too many to list &...

...gt; * Return-type Deduction >>>> > * Generic Lambdas >>>> > * std::make_unique<> (the source of many build bot breakages) >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > What are the main gains from allowing C++17? [1] >>>> > * [[nodiscard]] attribute >>>> > * structured bindings >>>> > * constexpr-if >>>> > * guaranteed copy elision >>>> > * numerous new library types: optional, string_view, variant, byte, >>>> > * numerous new algorithms: parallel algorithms...

...What are the main gains from allowing C++14? > * Variable templates > * Generalized constexpr > * Return-type Deduction > * Generic Lambdas > * std::make_unique<> (the source of many build bot breakages) > > > What are the main gains from allowing C++17? [1] > * [[nodiscard]] attribute > * structured bindings > * constexpr-if > * guaranteed copy elision > * numerous new library types: optional, string_view, variant, byte, > * numerous new algorithms: parallel algorithms, too many to list > * Probably some more, but I just tried to hit the biggest one...

...gt; * Return-type Deduction >>>> > * Generic Lambdas >>>> > * std::make_unique<> (the source of many build bot breakages) >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > What are the main gains from allowing C++17? [1] >>>> > * [[nodiscard]] attribute >>>> > * structured bindings >>>> > * constexpr-if >>>> > * guaranteed copy elision >>>> > * numerous new library types: optional, string_view, variant, byte, >>>> > * numerous new algorithms: parallel algorithms...

...What are the main gains from allowing C++14? > * Variable templates > * Generalized constexpr > * Return-type Deduction > * Generic Lambdas > * std::make_unique<> (the source of many build bot breakages) > > > What are the main gains from allowing C++17? [1] > * [[nodiscard]] attribute > * structured bindings > * constexpr-if > * guaranteed copy elision > * numerous new library types: optional, string_view, variant, byte, > * numerous new algorithms: parallel algorithms, too many to list > * Probably some more, but I just tried to hit the biggest one...

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 4, 2016, at 8:40 AM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: >> >> I ask because many of these LTS distros are notoriously slow at updating >> their