similar to: [LLVMdev] Proposal: Enhance FileCheck's variable matching capabilities

If I understand correctly, the desire is to change the current behavior in a kind of subtle way. Is there some way you could instrument trunk's FileCheck to die if the old behavior is encountered, and use that to definitively find all tests which rely on the current behavior and migrate them (possibly to an interim solution) in preparation for the change in semantics? How much is the old

Parents must be same after going through ref_for_same_block. Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com> --- fs/btrfs/backref.c | 6 ------ 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c index f318793..9aaa38e6 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c @@ -469,11 +469,6 @@ static int __merge_refs(struct list_head

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 11:16 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > Would you like to conduct the conversation here, or on the review thread? (I lean towards having them here, but don't mind if folks feel like it keeps the noise down & want to more post a notice saying "hey, here's this thing, if you're interested, go discuss it over there" -

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 1:29 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 1:24 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 11:16 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Would you like to conduct the conversation here, or on the review thread? (I lean

Hi all, LLD's --warn-backrefs is a tool to identify potential incompatible archive selection semantics with traditional Unix linkers. I have improved it (via D77522,D77630 and D77512) to a state where a --warn-backrefs diagnostic almost assuredly means that the link will fail with GNU ld, or the symbol will get different resolution in GNU ld and LLD. My conclusion is that --warn-backrefs is a

On 2020-09-01, Petr Hosek wrote: >I see the GNU ld behavior as a limitation, not as a feature, as Peter Smith >also pointed out in https://reviews.llvm.org/D86762. While it can be argued >that there are certain cases where it can help detect layering >violations as you mentioned in your change, I'm not sure how valuable that >is in practice. Every case I've encountered so

Hi I have a problem with substitutions involving named backreferences. I have a vector American.dates: > American.dates [1] "5/15/1976" "2.15.1970" "1.9.2006" which I want to change into British.dates: > British.dates [1] "15/5/1976" "15/2/1970" "9/1/2006" I know I can do it like this:

On 2020-09-03, Peter Collingbourne wrote: >On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 2:00 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> wrote: > >> On 2020-09-03, Peter Collingbourne wrote: >> >On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 5:35 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng via llvm-dev < >> >llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> > >> >> On 2020-09-01, Petr Hosek wrote: >> >> >I

On 2020-09-03, Peter Collingbourne wrote: >On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 5:35 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng via llvm-dev < >llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On 2020-09-01, Petr Hosek wrote: >> >I see the GNU ld behavior as a limitation, not as a feature, as Peter >> Smith >> >also pointed out in https://reviews.llvm.org/D86762. While it can be >> argued

On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 5:15 PM Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: > I wanted to chime in and say that I think we should keep the current > default too, for three reasons: > > 1. The current default is more user friendly. Users shouldn't have to > worry about if they pass -lpthread before or after their .o files (...or > other libraries. I know I know for

It looks like the conversation has died, but I just wanted to post my own investigation based on our internal code base. The code base itself is quite a sprawling mass, involving multiple different build systems, some bits CMake based, some hand-curated and so on, and I don't fully comprehend it all. I do know that trying to change it is hard at best, and more likely impossible to do so

So I manage to get clang's colored output through ninja simply by force (CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS=-fcolor-diagnostics), which isn't ideal (if I were to pipe ninja's output to a file it'd still have color escapes, etc) but it works. But I haven't found a similar solution for FileCheck & I'm wondering has anyone already solved this problem for themselves - if so, how? if not,

We''re going to use this flag EXTENT_DEFRAG to indicate which range belongs to defragment so that we can implement snapshow-aware defrag: We set the EXTENT_DEFRAG flag when dirtying the extents that need defragmented, so later on writeback thread can differentiate between normal writeback and writeback started by defragmentation. This patch is used for the latter one. Originally patch

Hi Revital, The CompileOnDemand layer is used by the lazy bitcode JIT in the lli tool. You can find the code in llvm/tools/lli/OrcLazyJIT.* . Cheers, Lang. On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Revital1 Eres <ERES at il.ibm.com> wrote: > Hello Lang, > > Thanks for your answer. > > I am now looking for an example of the usage of CompileOnDemandLayer. Is > there an example

I appears that backreferences when using regexes in node names doesn''t work. Can anyone confirm this? If I''m incorrect, how do I go about using a backreference to the name regex within the node definition container? Thanks, Guy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To view this discussion on the web

I'm having a Thursday morning mental block, any suggestions on the following would be most appreciated... I have (as an example) surgery = c("d48", "d67", "dnc37", "a75", "d10", "a78", "d31", "d55", "d1") before each number part the possibilities are c("a", "d",

Hello Lang, Thanks for your answer. I am now looking for an example of the usage of CompileOnDemandLayer. Is there an example available for that (could not find one in llvm/examples)? Thanks, Revital From: Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> To: Revital1 Eres/Haifa/IBM at IBMIL Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Date: 10/07/2015 12:10 AM Subject:

Hi, I have question again about modifiers for pattern parameters. Vedant suggested such way. > CHECK-DEFINE-PATTERN: one_or_more(x): x {{+}} But I have some doubts. This should be equal to x+. This approach differs from standard one. In FileCheck I can write CHECK: {{x|y}}{{something}} This line will be equal to regex (x|y)(something). But if I use suggested approach and write same

Yes, I now understand what you suggested. > CHECK-DEFINE-PATTERN: car(make, model, year): {{Found a }} make model {{, from }} year But I think that in pattern I should show that I use parameter. I thought that patterns can also be simple strings. All strings should be regexs in pattern and parameters can't be used in pattern in your example. But I want to use parameters in regexs. For

When writing MachineFunction unit tests, I find it quite tedious to verify correctness in C++. I would like to use FileCheck in UnitTests because FileCheck is extremely convenient/robust to verify correctness. In order to do so, I moved most of FileCheck’s implementation into a header (Support/FileCheck.h) and updated FileCheck.cpp to use this. I ran into this while writing some target agnostic