similar to: [LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: LLVM_FALLTHROUGH macro for intended fall-throughs between switch cases

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Cameron McInally <cameron.mcinally at nyu.edu>wrote: > Hey Alex, > > Sorry if this is a silly question... are you asking if anyone "wants the > functionality proposed" or "wants to write the code for the functionality > proposed"? > *-Wimplicit-fallthrough* diagnostic is already implemented, and the patch in this thread

Ping. On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:

Ping. On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>wrote: > Ping. > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> >> > <dropping llvm-commits> >> > >> > On Jul 2, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Alexander

On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > <dropping llvm-commits> > > On Jul 2, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Alexander Kornienko wrote: > >> Hi llvmdev, llvm-commits, >> >> There was a discussion on this topic a while ago, and now I've decided to make a formal proposal and post it here. > > I missed the earlier

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > > <dropping llvm-commits> > > > > On Jul 2, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Alexander Kornienko wrote: > > > >> Hi llvmdev, llvm-commits, > >> > >> There was a discussion on

<dropping llvm-commits> On Jul 2, 2012, at 9:59 AM, Alexander Kornienko wrote: > Hi llvmdev, llvm-commits, > > There was a discussion on this topic a while ago, and now I've decided to make a formal proposal and post it here. I missed the earlier discussion, so I'm sorry for chiming in late. > I propose to add the LLVM_FALLTHROUGH macro for specifying intended

This is Chris' call to make, imo. -j On Aug 22, 2012, at 3:59 PM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com> wrote: > Ping. > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com> wrote: > Ping. > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Richard

I came across a weird-looking use of LLVM_FALLTHROUGH which I think is completely spurious, but I figured I should check with the group mind before ripping it out. Basically, if you have multiple cases with no code in between, you do *not* need LLVM_FALLTHROUGH, right? switch (Foo) { case Bar1: LLVM_FALLTHROUGH; // not needed case Bar2: some code; return; case Bar3:

Great! Thanks everyone for the input, I'm going to start splitting up the patch. I'll send out the non-mechanical parts separately. On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:03 PM Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Oct 31, 2018, at 2:24 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > Alex Kornienko proposed enabling this warning back in 2012 here: >

Yes, I am working on it. The sub-projects are still having issues but the other documentation has been fixed. -Tanya > On Feb 14, 2019, at 3:53 AM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com> wrote: > > Tanya, friendly ping. > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:21 PM Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com <mailto:alexfh at google.com>> wrote: > Hi Tanya, >

While you're here, Xenial (15.10) seems wrong (should be 16.04 LTS). On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre at debian.org> wrote: > Hello > > Indeed, this package no longer exists. I removed it from llvm.org/apt/ > > Thanks, > Sylvestre > > Le 27/04/2016 à 12:23, Alexander Kornienko a écrit : > > Adding Sylvestre, who should know how

http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html currently mentions Python 2.5 as a minimum required version. I'd like to use argparse <https://docs.python.org/dev/library/argparse.html> in a script and be able to test this script. This requires Python 2.7. This version has been around since 2010, and afaiu, is available on all modern platforms. Is there any reason not to change minimum required

Thanks, I fixed the typo with Xenial. I don't know if I want to bring back llvm-jenkins.d.n again yet. if people see an interest in it, why not :) Le 27/04/2016 à 13:06, Alexander Kornienko a écrit : > ... and http://llvm-jenkins.debian.net/ seems to be down. Sorry for > bugging you with all of this, and thanks for fixing the > clang-modernize thingy so quickly! > > On Wed,

Thank you! It seems like new changes in .rst files are picked up quickly now. -- Alex On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:33 PM Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org> wrote: > This should all be fixed now. > > Thanks, > Tanya > > > On Feb 14, 2019, at 9:50 AM, Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org> wrote: > > Yes, I am working on it. The sub-projects are still having

Adding Sylvestre, who should know how to fix that. On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Nick Wiggill <nick.wiggill at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your replies, gentlemen. I'm in good standing with my install, > then. > > On the apt page <http://llvm.org/apt/>, it should not be suggested then > to "apt-get install [..etc..] clang-modernize-3.8 [..etc..]"

Hi Tanya, Last time I noticed a problem with clang-tools-extra docs you could help solving them. If someone else is taking care of this part of the infrastructure now, please redirect appropriately. It looks like docs generated from rst (for LLVM, Clang and clang-tools-extra) don't get updated at the moment. They stopped updating somewhere between r353327

In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch cases where we are expecting to fall through. Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 Notice that, in some cases, the code comment is modified in accordance with what GCC is expecting to find. This patch is part of the ongoing efforts to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough. Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo at

The docs are in a good shape in this regard: http://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-modernize.html http://llvm.org/releases/3.8.0/tools/clang/tools/extra/docs/clang-modernize.html Apparently, it doesn't make the fact more discoverable though. On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Benjamin Kramer via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > clang-modernize was folded into clang-tidy

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:08 AM Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo at embeddedor.com> wrote: > > In preparation to enabling -Wimplicit-fallthrough, mark switch > cases where we are expecting to fall through. > > Warning level 3 was used: -Wimplicit-fallthrough=3 > > Notice that, in some cases, the code comment is modified > in accordance with what GCC is expecting to find.