similar to: [LLVMdev] [RFC] C++11: 'virtual' and 'override'

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:02 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> > wrote: > > While doing the conversion of LLVM_OVERRIDE to 'override' last night, I > > noticed that the code base is rather inconsistent on whether the > 'virtual' > > keyword is also used

On Mar 4, 2014, at 7:57 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > On 2014 Mar 4, at 15:01, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:02 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: >>> While doing the

> On Dec 4, 2018, at 10:59 AM, George Burgess IV <george.burgess.iv at gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think people are too eager to use `auto` because it is easy to write but it makes the types substantially harder for the reader to understand > > I'm probably the Nth person to ask this, but what keeps us from promoting the use of a clang-tidy-powered tool that basically

clang-modernize has a -format option that will run clang-format on the code it changes. Ben On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > clang-modernize can add the 'override', but it can't currently delete 'virtual'. It will also potentially overflow 80 columns. And if it removed virtual it would fail to align a second line of

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 5, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 5, 2014, at 9:53 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > It might be reasonable to warn if a class has both a function marked > 'override' and a function that

I'm briefly enabling the MachineScheduler pass for x86 tonight to collect information on any failures that may show up. To properly enable the new scheduler, this hook is implemented in X86Subtarget: bool enableMachineScheduler() const LLVM_OVERRIDE { return true; } The MachineScheduler pass itself can be enabled/disabled with -enable-misched=true/false. But most of the codegen changes

On Mar 5, 2014, at 9:53 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> It might be reasonable to warn if a class has both a function marked >> 'override' and a function that overrides but is not marked 'override'. >> >> >> That could be useful - because it means that the author of the class is at >> least thinking about override -

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > I'm briefly enabling the MachineScheduler pass for x86 tonight to collect > information on any failures that may show up. > > To properly enable the new scheduler, this hook is implemented in > X86Subtarget: > > bool enableMachineScheduler() const LLVM_OVERRIDE { return true; } > >

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. On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > Didn't realize that. I'll see if i can figure out how to make it delete > the virtual

On Jun 24, 2013, at 2:47 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> wrote: > I'm briefly enabling the MachineScheduler pass for x86 tonight to collect information on any failures that may show up. > > To properly enable the new scheduler, this hook is implemented in X86Subtarget:

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

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > virtual bar *foo() = 0; > > where foo() also exists as pure in the base class. Clang-modernize has a > FIXME that says it can't find the "=0" to 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

In VMCore/Module.cpp i found line (254): ((Value*)Ty)->setName(Name, &ST); Type is not Value now and for me this code call llvm::DerivedType::addAbstractTypeUser (I think it have same index in Type VMT in as setName in Value VMT) with random argument values and terminated with assert fail: Assertion failed: (isAbstract() && "addAbstractTypeUser: Current type not

How difficult would it be to add a warning to Clang when the programmer performs a cast that provably has no effect? A particular case I have in mind is someone getting confused and calling std::move on an argument to a copy-constructor for a class that doesn't implement move semantics. I would be grateful if someone either (1) told me why this is difficult/impossible, or (2) gave me some

I believe if you pass(iirc) -pass-remarks-missed=“gisel-*”, it’ll print the instruction it failed to legalize. Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 11, 2017, at 6:44 PM, S. Bharadwaj Yadavalli via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Thanks for your quick reply. > > Here its is: > > =========== > > ; ModuleID = 'simple_foo.c' > source_filename

Thanks for your quick reply. Here its is: =========== ; ModuleID = 'simple_foo.c' source_filename = "simple_foo.c" target datalayout = "e-m:o-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128" target triple = "x86_64-apple-macosx10.13.0" ; Function Attrs: noinline nounwind optnone ssp uwtable define i32 @foo(i32 %a, i32 %b, i32 %c) #0 { entry: %retval = alloca i32, align

Hi, Can someone please let me know if I can expect GlobalISel to be functional for x86/x86-64 targets? $ uname -a Darwin <Machine-Name> 17.0.0 Darwin Kernel Version 17.0.0: Thu Aug 24 21:48:19 PDT 2017; root:xnu-4570.1.46~2/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64 Following is the command I used that resulted in an error : ~/github/build/llvm/Debug/bin/llc -global-isel -O0 simple_foo.ll LLVM ERROR: unable

Hi , Currently GobalIsel like FastIsel designed to use fallback to DAGIsel in case of failure. You can use -global-isel-abort=2 option. llc -global-isel -pass-remarks-missed="gisel-*" -global-isel-abort=2 simple_foo.ll Regards, Igor From: S. Bharadwaj Yadavalli [mailto:bharadwajy at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 03:36 To: Aditya Nandakumar <proaditya at

Restrict is supported by Clang for C++ via __restrict__, so it seems strange to block using this proposed option for C++. That said, this kind of option can be dangerous and should come with a suitable warning. We’ve had a similar option and in practice it’s been used to hunt for performance gains (i.e., turn it on and see what happens), but just because the code runs faster and produces the

On Mar 4, 2014, at 11:43 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Mar 4, 2014, at 10:48 PM, Duncan Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Related, should we require use of 'override' when methods override a base