search for: sometool

Hi all, There have been a few cases recently where I've noticed two test cases in the same lit test that do the same thing except invert the CHECK, to show that something is NOT present. I'm talking about something like the following: # RUN: llvm-sometool --print-string | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=STRING # RUN: llvm-sometool --no-print-string | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=NO-STRING # STRING: This is the string # NO-STRING-NOT: This is the string In such cases, as can be seen, the CHECK line effectively has to be duplicated (either in an explicit...

...give a name > to a given directive's pattern which you could reuse as another pattern. Something like (syntax TBD): > > CHECK<NAME>: mov [[REG:r[0-9]+]], #42 > CHECK-NOT: <NAME> I.e. without adding a new optinons for FileCheck, something like the following? # RUN: llvm-sometool --print-string | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK1 # RUN: llvm-sometool --no-print-string | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK2 CHECK1<NAME>: mov [[REG:r[0-9]+]], #42 CHECK2-NOT: <NAME> It might work probably. We already have the ability to name parts of the output checked: // CHECK...

...reuse as another pattern. > Something like (syntax TBD): > > > > > > CHECK<NAME>: mov [[REG:r[0-9]+]], #42 > > > CHECK-NOT: <NAME> > > > > I.e. without adding a new optinons for FileCheck, something like the > following? > > # RUN: llvm-sometool --print-string | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=CHECK1 > > # RUN: llvm-sometool --no-print-string | FileCheck %s --check-prefix= > CHECK2 > > > > CHECK1<NAME>: mov [[REG:r[0-9]+]], #42 > > CHECK2-NOT: <NAME> > > > > It might work probably. We already...

...g extended patch context by looking at the svn > repo/git mirrors (rather than requiring the person submitting the patch > to re-upload with -U999). > Yea, this is hard, because detecting which path a patch goes against is hard (for example, if the patch path is a pure add for a new tools/sometool directory, is it in clang or llvm?) and requiring people to do global top-level llvm patches seems rather problematic. The workaround is to use arc diff (the command line tool). > > > Jon > > On 7/2/15 10:52 AM, Keno Fischer wrote: > > This might be slightly off topic, but I...

...g library (WALL - http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/java/index.php) that implements a JSP tag library on top of WURFL - this makes it very easy to develop web applications that behave cleverly with the different devices out there. It handles WAP phones, XHTML browser and more. The WURFL project has sometools and examples in Ruby - http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/ruby/index.php. My problems is that as a newbie to both Ruby and Rails i do not know where to start? Is there something similar to JSP TAG libs? If not, can you ecommend better approaches? What I would like to do is to get the same ease-of-p...

...;>> repo/git mirrors (rather than requiring the person submitting the patch >>> to re-upload with -U999). >>> >> >> Yea, this is hard, because detecting which path a patch goes against is >> hard (for example, if the patch path is a pure add for a new tools/sometool >> directory, is it in clang or llvm?) and requiring people to do global >> top-level llvm patches seems rather problematic. >> >> The workaround is to use arc diff (the command line tool). >> > > Speaking of which, in case anyone else has issues with arc today,...

Hi All, I've been playing [1] with the newly introduced CMake interface for using exported LLVM CMake targets (e.g. the LLVMSupport library) in CMake projects and although it works there are a few things I think we should fix before the LLVM 3.5 release. Here are the current issues I see that I'd like to discuss. Just to clarify by "Targets" I mean targets in the CMake sense

...requiring the person submitting the patch >>>>> to re-upload with -U999). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yea, this is hard, because detecting which path a patch goes against is >>>> hard (for example, if the patch path is a pure add for a new tools/sometool >>>> directory, is it in clang or llvm?) and requiring people to do global >>>> top-level llvm patches seems rather problematic. >>>> >>>> The workaround is to use arc diff (the command line tool). >>>> >>> >>> Speaking o...

...CATION`` property of >> one of the imported targets. Unfortunately CMake 3.0 really doesn't >> like this I get warnings > > As suggested in the CMP0026 documentation: > > http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.0/policy/CMP0026.html > > you can use the $<TARGET_FILE:SomeTool> generator expression to > get the location in a well-defined manner. It works in > add_custom_command so that should be sufficient for your example > use case. I've taken another look at this. For the simple example project [1] I'm effectively doing this. ``` add_library(Rep...

This might be slightly off topic, but I'd really like a way to be able to run the buildbots off a Phabricator Diff before committing. On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > Unfortunately threading will be broken for changes currently under review > (new patches shouldn't have the problem). > I'm very sorry for this inconvenience