Displaying 20 results from an estimated 100 matches similar to: "Redundant Twine->StringRef->Twine conversions in llvm::sys::fs::make_absolute?"
2016 Apr 13
4
lit conditional compilation/checking?
How can I platform-conditionally compile/check sections of code with lit?
Can I rely on preprocessor defines like _WIN32?
Specifically, I'm adding new tests to existing lit tests, but the new tests
should only be compiled and run on Windows.
Sincerely,
Alexander Riccio
--
"Change the world or go home."
about.me/ariccio
<http://about.me/ariccio>
If left to my own devices, I
2016 Jan 05
2
llvm.natvis should be included when generating LLVM.sln
As of Visual Studio 2015, natvis files can be included as part of
individual projects
<http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2015/09/28/debug-visualizers-in-visual-c-2015.aspx>,
a much better method than manually copying the file to an specific
directory in %USERPROFILE%.
I think it should be included in one of the CMakeLists.txt files, does
anybody know how I can add it?
Sincerely,
2016 Feb 11
3
Code in headers
While investigating compile times, I noticed that there's no information in
the LLVM coding standards about code in headers. Many LLVM/Clang headers
have lots of complex code in headers - I'm specifically looking at the
Static Analyzer projects (seemingly slowest compile times, biggest
hinderance to my productivity) - that probably doesn't need to be there.
Nobody likes slow compile
2016 Feb 11
2
Code in headers
That makes sense. Someone should stick it in the coding standards?
it's just thankless work
Absolutely, but since slow compile times (can) nuke my productivity, I may
move some code out of headers.
Sincerely,
Alexander Riccio
--
"Change the world or go home."
about.me/ariccio
<http://about.me/ariccio>
If left to my own devices, I will build more.
⁂
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016
2016 Feb 11
2
Code in headers
> On Feb 10, 2016, at 7:34 PM, George Burgess IV via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> > Someone should stick it in the coding standards?
>
> I'm happy to give this a shot.
My 2c: I don’t think that we can agree to abstract code guidelines without knowing what it means in practice for the codebase. If you’re interested in this, please include a diff
2012 Jun 19
0
[LLVMdev] llvm/include/Support/FileSystem.h
This is a proposed patch to enhance FileSystem.h to add functionality (getting and setting permission bits and mapping an unmapping files). This implementation follows the N3365 proposal regarding permission bits.
This functionality is needed for my next patch which will implement llvm/include/Support/FileOutputBuffer.h which is needed by lld.
-------------- next part --------------
A
2012 May 18
2
[LLVMdev] [RFC] llvm/include/Support/FileOutputBuffer.h
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> + error_code ec = sys::fs::status(filePathTwine, stat);
>
> stat is undefined if ec isn't success. ec will be success even in the case of
> file_not_found.
Actually I was wrong. The Windows and UNIX implementation disagree on
this point. I'm going to change it to match
2012 May 17
3
[LLVMdev] [RFC] llvm/include/Support/FileOutputBuffer.h
I now have an implementation of FileOutputBuffer (OutputBuffer was already taken). The patch supports the functionality listed below and I've tested that it works for lld.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: FileOutputBuffer.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 25308 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
2012 Mar 22
1
[LLVMdev] Infinite recursion in sys::fs::create_directories()
Hi,
sys::fs::create_directories() recurses infinitely for relative paths
with only one directory or where the first directory in path doesn't
exist. This was observed in r153176.
Example:
#include <llvm/Support/FileSystem.h>
using namespace llvm;
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
bool existed;
error_code ec = sys::fs::create_directories(Twine("log"), existed);
2012 May 18
0
[LLVMdev] [RFC] llvm/include/Support/FileOutputBuffer.h
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote:
> I now have an implementation of FileOutputBuffer (OutputBuffer was already taken). The patch supports the functionality listed below and I've tested that it works for lld.
>
> To implement the FileOutputBuffer, I needed to add some more functions to llvm/Support/FileSystem.h, including:
>
2013 Jan 08
1
sftp "cd" command to drive letter under cygwin
Hello.
When using sftp under cygwin, a "cd d:" attempt to change to the d: drive, results in the following:
sftp> cd d:/
Couldn't canonicalise: No such file or directory.
It can only be done by using a cygdrive-type path:
sftp> cd /cygdrive/d
sftp> pwd
Remote working directory: /cygdrive/d
sftp>
yet a local cd (lcd) works fine. "lcd d:" works, and then lpwd
2002 Feb 06
2
SFTP Status Bar..
This is the LAST version I plan on doing.. If I hear no feed back good
or bad. Then I'll assume I've wasted my time on a feature that people
whine about but don't care to try. This is against 3.0.2pX so it
should be VERY easy for anyone to test.
- Ben
diff -ur openssh-3.0.2p1/misc.c openssh/misc.c
--- openssh-3.0.2p1/misc.c Tue Jul 3 23:46:58 2001
+++ openssh/misc.c Wed Feb 6
2009 Sep 29
4
[Bug 1655] New: sftp is unhappy with asterisks in filenames
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1655
Summary: sftp is unhappy with asterisks in filenames
Product: Portable OpenSSH
Version: 5.2p1
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Mac OS X
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: sftp
AssignedTo: unassigned-bugs at mindrot.org
2008 Jul 21
2
sftp needs a long time for sending a filelist
Hello all
Im using sftp 1:4.7p1-8ubuntu1.2
in a batchjob
Ive noticed that sftp needs a long time for sending a filelist.
The timespan increases exponential if many files are on the
remoteserver.
for example "ls -la *.txt" needs 10 seconds for 2000 files
but needs 50 seconds for 4000 files.
For 150.000 Files i have to wait 15 minutes for example
but the
2011 Jul 19
0
[LLVMdev] Correct use of StringRef and Twine
> curiosity question: how much more efficient (vague question, I know)
> is the StringRef + SmallVector than a good (eg: libc++) std::string
> implementation? I know, for example, that Visual C++ 2010's
> std::string does perform the small string optimization which I guess
> is what SmallVector is doing.
>
> - David
Problem is, there are REALLY bad std::string
2011 Jul 19
0
[LLVMdev] Correct use of StringRef and Twine
> Perhaps, I suppose, I'm not sure just how portable llvm code is.
Very portable AFAICT. I'm even going to port it to my hobbyist OS once
C++ rtti is totally gone in the llvm code base.
2011 Jul 19
2
[LLVMdev] Correct use of StringRef and Twine
>> Perhaps, I suppose, I'm not sure just how portable llvm code is.
>
> Very portable AFAICT. I'm even going to port it to my hobbyist OS once C++
> rtti is totally gone in the llvm code base.
Sorry, I meant source portable to different compilers (ie: which
compilers does llvm compile on & how many have really poor std::string
implementations).
- David
2011 Jul 21
0
[LLVMdev] Correct use of StringRef and Twine
> [diff attached]
Updated diff with test fix. (since this broke a test (printing chars
as numerical values, rather than characters) it's possible this change
is a bad idea & it could break the product code itself. Though
strangely I wasn't able to do character concatenation without my
change, so I have a sneaking suspicion that while the test passed, it
didn't actually expose
2011 Jul 19
4
[LLVMdev] Correct use of StringRef and Twine
> Problem is, there are REALLY bad std::string implementations out there in
> widely used c++ runtimes.
No doubt - though widely used to build llvm/clang? Perhaps, I suppose,
I'm not sure just how portable llvm code is.
> StringRef/Twine is efficient everywhere.
Yep - I'm just pedantic about having a tidy codebase, and duplicate
code to workaround bad implementations when
2011 Jul 26
1
[LLVMdev] Correct use of StringRef and Twine
On Jul 24, 2011, at 6:31 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>>> This keeps things simple & seems to be "good enough" to me, but we
>>> could perhaps do better (at the very least, again, if we did do
>>> better, we could go back & remove TwineString & again fix all the
>>> places that fail to compile with whatever new hotness we invent)
>>