search for: ueyama

...google.com> wrote: > Please add me on reviews. BTW, even differing in whitespace might cause > problems, I know their tools have some builtin assumptions about whitespace > in type names. How deeply engrained this is is not clear though. > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 10:10 AM Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> FYI, I started writing a demangler. I think I can send an initial patch >> to review in a few days. >> >> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >> >>>...

FYI, I started writing a demangler. I think I can send an initial patch to review in a few days. On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> > wrote: > >> If it's only whitespace differences, that's easy to accommodate. If >> there are other cases that don't work, maybe don't use t...

...do the insert of override. > Does that mean we have a pure virtual function with implementation in Clang/LLVM? If so, I feel it's a little bit confusing. If not, we should remove such redundant pure virtual function declarations from derived classes, no? On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> It also doesn't do pure methods either. >> >> >> I think I don't quite understand what that means. Can you give me an...

I guess I'm talking about atoms. Do we have notion of section in LLD? On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 3/24/2015 7:51 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: >> >> On Mar 24, 2015, at 5:09 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >>> >>> It's not a big deal, but it always annoyed me a bit when I hit it, so &g...

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:25 PM, James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> wrote: > > Also, if it can segfault for some pathetic input > > Surely that's a bug though, not seriously designed behaviour? > No. That is a design choice. > On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 at 19:24 Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > >> We do not enable exceptions and longjmp is not safe. Also, if it can >> segfault for some pathetic input, "it longjmps in most cases" doesn't help >> people who wants 100% guarantee like you. >> >> On Mon, Mar 21,...

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > It also doesn't do pure methods either. I think I don't quite understand what that means. Can you give me an example? > On Thursday, March 6, 2014, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > >> After running the tool aginst LLD, I realized that clang-modernize do not >> add "override" to virtual destructors. I think it's not intended but just >> that that case is not covered by the tool. >> >> >> O...

On 26 May 2015, at 20:13, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > I sent a patch to llvm-commits. You can see the code at http://reviews.llvm.org/D10036. Thanks! Why does the link not actually go where the text of it would imply, and instead bounce via some random (malicious?) third party? Do you have some malware in...

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 6, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > Looks like most people in this thread support using LLVM style in LLD. I > also had an offline discussion and many people wanted to have one coding > style in all LLVM projects. So I'm convinced that we should do that. > > I'm going to...

...ple wanted to have one coding style in all LLVM projects. So I'm convinced that we should do that. I'm going to create a patch to rename all variables if no one objects. On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Bruce Hoult <bruce at hoult.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > >> would touch all the lines. Diff is not powerful enough to trace the >> history beyond variable renaming. svn blame would become useless. >> > > "useless" is much too strong a description. > > If svn blame points to th...

...here are other cases that don't work, maybe don't use this tactic for those, if we have a good reason for being different. As they say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. --paulr From: David Blaikie [mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 10:39 AM To: Rui Ueyama; Robinson, Paul Cc: Martin J. O'Riordan; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] VC C++ demangler Yeah, may well be the case - I don't /think/ LLVM quite matches the exact syntax of the GCC demangler either (I seem to recall constants as non-type template parameters were a bit d...

I sent a patch for review. I'll wait for a while, probably submit that tomorrow. On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > I think I bought up this topic before, but I'd like to propose seriously > > removing the Native file format from LLD this time. > > > > IIUC, the Native file format was designed to be the fastest on-memory or > > on-disk file...

The new linker is quickly becoming more than just an experiment. 64-bit COFF linker is mostly feature complete, and now we are having a direct translation of the COFF linker for ELF. Historically LLD has been suffered by over-designing and over-engineering. I don't want to repeat that again in the new codebase, so I'd like to be an owner of the new linkers (both for ELF and COFF), so that

Yes, that would be the long term plan. llvm-link ideally would share the same library. I'm not sure where it should live though. On Tue 14 Feb 2017 at 01:49, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > I took a look at the code. Looks like you need a library to create import > library files in LLVM and use that from llvm-dlltool and LLD. Is that what > you are planning? > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Martell Malone <martellmalone at gma...

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Rui Ueyama" > <ruiu at google.com> > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:38:57 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Embedding LLD version to executables > > On Oct 18, 2016, at 8:30 PM, Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov > wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > &...

It's not a big deal, but it always annoyed me a bit when I hit it, so I'll bring it up here. LLD represents an alignment X as log2(X) in some places and just X in other places. It's a bit confusing. Because I always think alignments in my mind in terms of 1, 2, 4, 8, ..., instead of 2^1, 2^2, 2^3, ..., I'd like to propose to always use real values. Any objections? --------------

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-commits < llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 02:40:06PM -0800, Rui Ueyama via llvm-commits > wrote: > > Tried to fix the warning, and I'm not now sure if the warning makes > sense. > > These "'~': zero extending '<smaller integer type>' to 'int64_t' of > greater > > size" warning may be annoying as it...

Well that means it would just be the only plan then. I assume the first step would be to move the code from lld into this new library and lld can use that? I can then re add the extra functionality for weak externals? We can then have lib and dlltool use this then. On Tue 14 Feb 2017 at 01:58, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Martell Malone <martellmalone at gmail.com> > wrote: > > Yes, that would be the long term plan. > llvm-link ideally would share the same library. > I'm not sure where it should live though. > > &...

...s` show any changes? > > > > *From: *llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Josh > Sharp via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *Reply-To: *Josh Sharp <mm92126 at hotmail.com> > *Date: *Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 3:15 PM > *To: *Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> > *Cc: *via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *Subject: *Re: [llvm-dev] Building lld > > > > I tried deleting my build directory and restarting from scratch > > > > $ cd llvm-project > > $ mkdir build && cd build &gt...

Yes, it's very likely. It'd be very convenient if we could send a patch to buildbots for testing without actually submitting. On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > Hi LLVMdev, > > > > My recent commit r186623 caused buildbots for s390-linux and ppc64-linux > to > > fail. I rolled back that commit, and I'm trying to fix to re-submit. > > > > Is there any good way to debug the issu...

...no longer uses > layout-before. > > The reason that two references are used are to make sure garbage > collection treats the whole group of atoms together when it wants to > Garbage collect an atom. > > Thanks > > Shankar Easwaran > > > On 3/21/2014 5:45 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote: > > +llvmdev > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I'm trying to debug an issue that LLD sometimes get into an infinite >> loop in setChainRoot() in LayoutPass.cpp. It looks like the c...