similar to: objc++ enhancements?

Hi James, Non-Apple people can’t “see radar”. Do you work at Apple? In either case, the clang development email list would be the right start for this. Also, if you work at Apple, please consider reaching out to the DevTools department directly. Dave > On Mar 19, 2018, at 12:21, James Gregurich via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > hi. > > Is there interest

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: > > On 18/07/2014 02:21, David Blaikie wrote: >> >> Are people OK with/prefer the use of owning smart pointers in APIs? > > > I think smart pointers are great to use for storage, or as struct members > where there's actually a clear need for ownership. Just by virtue of getting > rid of

why llvm contains IntrusiveRefCntPtr instead of using only std::shared_ptr? IntrusiveRefCntPtr widely used in llvm and clang source code. Due to better performance? for example in main func of clang frontend: int cc1_main(ArrayRef<const char *> Argv, const char *Argv0, void *MainAddr) { ensureSufficientStack(); std::unique_ptr<CompilerInstance> Clang(new CompilerInstance());

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Benjamin Kramer via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > In terms of performance shared_ptr has a number of disadvantages. One > is that it always uses atomics even though most IntrusiveRefCntPtrs > are used in single-threaded contexts. Another is weak_ptr adding a lot > of complexity to the implementation, IntrusiveRefCntPtr

I am getting all these messages when run `passenger-status''. Do I need to worry about this? I am using passenger 2.2.2 with puppet 0.24.8 and apache2 on ubuntu 9.04. I installed it using the wiki http://reductivelabs.com/trac/puppet/wiki/UsingPassenger Thread ''Main thread'': in ''int Server::start()'' (ApplicationPoolServerExecutable.cpp:553)

Chris and Bill, I have tested the proposed patch from... http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-August/016490.html under i686-apple-darwin9 and it solves the problems building gfortran from llvm svn. The resulting compiler works fine so can we get that patch in before 2.4 is release? Jack ps We do have one oddity left in llvm-gfortran from current llvm svn. I find

Am 29.08.19 um 12:07 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 10:15, Christian Schneider > <cschneider at radiodata.biz> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> I just discovered, that, when using enable_shared_from_this and >> inheriting it privately, this fails at runtime. >> I made a small example: >> >> #include <memory> >> #include

Hello, I just discovered, that, when using enable_shared_from_this and inheriting it privately, this fails at runtime. I made a small example: #include <memory> #include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp> #include <boost/make_shared.hpp> #include <boost/enable_shared_from_this.hpp> #ifndef prefix #define prefix std #endif class foo: prefix::enable_shared_from_this<foo> {

I have some C++ source files that mix in small bits of Obj-C. On the Mac, these files are marked to be compiled as Obj-C++. Looking at the clang help, it seems that the option for that is "-ObjC++". However, when I add that in Additional Options I get an error message: CL> : error : invalid integral value 'bjC++' in '-ObjC++' I see this same message if I put

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.msbb.uc.edu> wrote: > Chris and Bill, > I have tested the proposed patch from... > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-August/016490.html > > under i686-apple-darwin9 and it solves the problems building gfortran > from llvm svn. The resulting compiler works fine so can we get that > patch

On Oct 30, 2008, at 11:02 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Oct 30, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: >> ps We do have one oddity left in llvm-gfortran from current llvm >> svn. I find everytime I compile something with llvm-gfortran that >> I get a series of warning messages... >> >> f951: warning: command line option "-Wformat" is valid for C/C++/

Looking back through the commits to llvm-gcc-4.2/trunk/gcc/config/i386/darwin.h, I see a total backout of format related warnings in r56923 followed by the reapplication of r569065 with a fix (r56946)... -- llvm-gcc-4.2/trunk/gcc/config/i386/darwin.h 2008/10/01 17:38:40 56923 +++ llvm-gcc-4.2/trunk/gcc/config/i386/darwin.h 2008/10/02 06:16:08 56946 @@ -101,6 +101,8 @@ %{!mmacosx-version-min=*:

On Oct 30, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > ps We do have one oddity left in llvm-gfortran from current llvm > svn. I find everytime I compile something with llvm-gfortran that > I get a series of warning messages... > > f951: warning: command line option "-Wformat" is valid for C/C++/ > ObjC/ObjC++ but not for Fortran > f951: warning: command line option

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 05:38:30PM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.msbb.uc.edu> wrote: > > Chris and Bill, > > I have tested the proposed patch from... > > > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-August/016490.html > > > > under i686-apple-darwin9 and it solves the problems

The current llvm/llvm-gcc-4.2 svn when built on i686-apple-darwin9 still produces the bogus warnings... f951: warning: command line option "-Wformat" is valid for C/C++/ObjC/ObjC++ but not for Fortran f951: warning: command line option "-Wformat-security" is valid for C/C++/ObjC/ObjC++ but not for Fortran whenc compling any code with gfortran. This causes the gfortran

So this wasn't tested for a month? Anyways, Free() is just free() with a check that we're not freeing a null pointer, followed by setting the pointer to NULL. At that point of tcltk.c, we have for (objc = i = 0; i < length(avec); i++){ const char *s; char *tmp; if (!isNull(nm) && strlen(s = translateChar(STRING_ELT(nm, i)))){ // tmp =

On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 5:53 PM <luke-tierney at uiowa.edu> wrote: > > On Sun, 7 Jun 2020, peter dalgaard wrote: > > > So this wasn't tested for a month? > > > > Anyways, Free() is just free() with a check that we're not freeing a null pointer, followed by setting the pointer to NULL. At that point of tcltk.c, we have > > > > for (objc = i = 0;

Hello, Say I want to make a multiple regression model with the following expression: lm(y~x1 + x2 + x3 + ... + x_n,data=mydata) It gets boring to type in the whole independent variables, in this case x_i. Is there any simple way to do the metaprogramming for this? (There are different cases where the names of the independent variables might sometimes have apparent patterns or not)

Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > The problem that I have with this sort of higher order metaprogramming Metaprogramming? This isn't template metaprogramming if that's what you mean. > in C++'98 is that you're trading one set of complexity for another. What's the other complexity? -Dave

Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > On Jul 15, 2011, at 12:35 PM, David Greene wrote: > >> I've run into a use case where I'd like to use a mapped_iterator to >> iterator the 1st (or 2nd) items in a sequence of std::pairs. Does >> select1st/select2nd exist somewhere within LLVM or is there some >> equivalent? If not, I'll add it. >