similar to: [LLVMdev] ErrorOr<> conflicts with unique_ptr<>

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > Michael, > > In lld, we have places that used nested a ErrorOr<std::unique_ptr<xx>> and > I often hit compiler errors that require breaking up expressions to work > around. Do you have suggestions on how to code the following simple > examples to not error? Can some of these be

On Nov 21, 2013, at 4:07 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > Michael, > > In lld, we have places that used nested a ErrorOr<std::unique_ptr<xx>> and I often hit compiler errors that require breaking up expressions to work around. Do you have

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 21, 2013, at 4:07 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > >> Michael, >> >> In lld, we have places that used nested a

Hey there, lld fails to build on Visual Studio 2013 because of ErrorOr<void>. For example, ErrorOr<void> is used in InputGraph.h as the return type of InputGraph::reset. Inside of ErrorOr, there is: typedef typename remove_reference<T>::type &reference As T is void, and remove_reference <T>::type results in void, the typedef expands to: typedef void & reference,

I think I removed all uses of ErrorOr<void>. Can you try updating? On 15 November 2013 12:09, Daniel Albuschat <d.albuschat at gmail.com> wrote: > Hey there, > > lld fails to build on Visual Studio 2013 because of ErrorOr<void>. > For example, ErrorOr<void> is used in InputGraph.h as the return type > of InputGraph::reset. > Inside of ErrorOr, there is:

I'm currently using MSVC 2012, but I saw that Alp Toker landed a patch to LLD to make it compile with MSVC 2013, so I believe it's doable. Update and try again. On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Rafael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > I think I removed all uses of ErrorOr<void>. Can you try updating? > > On 15 November 2013 12:09, Daniel Albuschat

Hello, this is a call for feedback: opinions, improvements, testers.. I use the support classes Expected<T> and ErrorOr<T> quite often recently and I like the concept a lot! Thanks Lang btw! However, from time to time I found issues in the execution paths of my error cases and got annoyed by their naturally low test coverage. So I started sketching a test that runs all error paths

Yes definitely, testing a small piece of code like the GlobPattern::create() example, it would mostly indicate missing unit tests or insufficient test data. In contrast to unit tests, however, it can also verify correct handling of errors passed between function call hierarchies in more complex scenarios. For this I should point to the other example in the code, where it's applied to

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:19 AM Stefan Gränitz <stefan.graenitz at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Lang, hi David, thanks for looking into this. > > > > Did you identify many cases where "real work" (in your example, the > nullptr dereference" was being done in an error branch? > > In my own code yes, not in LLVM ;) I'd like to run it on a large example,

> I like this idea in general. It's a better implementation of what > ErrorOr originally was before we removed the custom error support > because it wasn't used. In fact I would actually support outright > replacing ErrorOr with this if it can be done safely, as I find the > name TypedErrorOr a bit long. The main differences are * This will hopefully be used. *

Hi Stefan, David, This is very interesting stuff - it adds a dimension of error security that Error/Expected can't provide on their own. I think it would be interesting to try to build a tool around this. Did you identify many cases where "real work" (in your example, the nullptr dereference" was being done in an error branch? My suspicion is that that should be rare, but that

Hi Michael, Rafael, Pawel, Apologies for the delayed reply - I was out on vacation last week. > In fact I would actually support outright > replacing ErrorOr with this if it can be done safely, as I find the > name TypedErrorOr a bit long. I find the name awkward too. I'll leave these classes as TypedError and TypedErrorOr<T> when I submit the initial patch to llvm-commits,

With comdats parts of the file might never be read. There are also multiple levels of cache and while all the relocations of a file will fit in ram, it is probably still more efficient to validate them as they are read. But I think (typing on a phone) that relocations are another case where the best is to have a more specific api: the only way the relocation is invalid from the perspective of

On 29 May 2015 at 19:06, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Having proper error handling in LLVM's Object parsing library is a nice > thing by itself, but it would additionally allow us to find bugs by fuzzing > (see r238451 that adds llvm-dwarfdump-fuzzer tool), for which the clean > input validation is essential. > > This is a

Hi everyone, Having proper error handling in LLVM's Object parsing library is a nice thing by itself, but it would additionally allow us to find bugs by fuzzing (see r238451 that adds llvm-dwarfdump-fuzzer tool), for which the clean input validation is essential. This is a generic discussion of state of affairs. I want to do some progress in fuzzing before we finish it (especially if we

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Having proper error handling in LLVM's Object parsing library is a nice > thing by itself, but it would additionally allow us to find bugs by fuzzing > (see r238451 that adds llvm-dwarfdump-fuzzer tool), for which the clean > input validation is essential. > > This

Hello, I am trying to run this basic C++ hello-world code in my iOS app that has LLVM libraries linked in (the app runs on the actual device - iPad Pro, iOS 13.4.1). #include <iostream> int main (int argh, char *argv[]) { std::cout << "Hello World!" << std::endl; return 0; } So below is the break down of the steps that I do: First I compile this code to an

Hi Lang, Please see below is the trace. -- Thanks, Igor *2020-06-06 12:05:21.016705-0400 CppDevProCompiler[6613:3000073] Running...* *jitLink_MachO: magic = 0xfeedfacf, identifier = "llvm-link.submodule-jitted-objectbuffer"* *jitLink_MachO: cputype = 0x0100000c, cpusubtype = 0x00000000* *Creating normalized sections...* * __text: 0x0000000000000000 -- 0x0000000000000064, align:

Hi Dave, Yep. This is JITLink specific, so we could only have observed it on MachO x86-64 or arm64 until recently. It takes a little bit of poking to get IR to produce a zero-lengh section on MachO, but not much. Jared Wyles recently contributed an initial JITLink ELF implementation, so the fix seems timely -- we might have been about to see more of it. -- Lang. On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:02 PM

Hi, I am begineer to llvm, implementing a main.cpp from https://github.com/davidar/lljvm/blob/master/backend/main.cpp A) : When I am declaring a command: * PassManager PM* * PM.add(new DataLayout td)* It shows error: > *error: missing template arguments before ‘PM’* * PassManager PM;* ^ >*main_test.cpp:48:2: error: ‘PM’ was not declared in this scope* *