similar to: [RFC] Defined initialization order in Support/Registry

Hello, I'm getting bitten by the "static initialization order fiasco" http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/ctors.html#faq-10.12 The static data causing the problem is the static TypeMap<PointerValType, PointerType> PointerTypes; and other typemaps. The background is that in our product we are using an overridden new operator to track memory allocations. This system is

Mehdi, Teresa, Not sure if this is caused by one of your recent commits, or by someone else's, please excuse me if that's unrelated to your work... http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast/builds/542/steps/check-llvm%20asan/logs/stdio ==26383==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco on address 0x000002ef41d8 at pc 0x0000009d1aa5 bp 0x7ffd0cd72b50 sp

+llvm-dev On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 1:46 PM David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 14/01/2019 10:36, Ilya Biryukov via llvm-dev wrote: > > To reiterate, our proposal was to create a repository for each of the > > LLVM subprojects under the official LLVM GitHub account, e.g. > > github.com/llvm/clangd <http://github.com/llvm/clangd>. > >

[ cc'd to the vorbis list because I thought y'all would be interested ] Hi, I saw the freshmeat.net posting for FIASCO (http://ulli.linuxave.net/fiasco/) this afternoon, and was really excited another bright mind had put some cool A/V software out for free. I was wondering if you have ever heard of the Ogg and Vorbis projects (more info on them at xiph.org). They are

> On 9 Feb 2018, at 10:20, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: >> On 7 Feb 2018, at 21:51, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers <release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> There's been a lot of merges since rc1, and hopefully the tests are in

On Oct 19, 2017 6:50 PM, "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:48 AM Sam McCall <sammccall at google.com> wrote: > clangd communicates with an editor via JSON-RPC. It parses JSON with > YAMLParser, which is awkward, and generates JSON with printf and friends, > which is miserable. Much of LLVM does things this way, but clangd

clangd communicates with an editor via JSON-RPC. It parses JSON with YAMLParser, which is awkward, and generates JSON with printf and friends, which is miserable. Much of LLVM does things this way, but clangd does it a lot. I'd like to try replacing this with a JSON library. nlohmann/json[1] seems like a reasonable fit: C++11 with exceptions optional, simple build, MIT license. I'd

Hi LLVM community, As discussed earlier, we in the clangd land feel that buganizer does not address the clangd's needs as a bug-tracking system. In our previous attempt to raise this on llvm-dev [1] we shared our idea to put the clangd issue tracker on GitHub. The participants raised multiple concerns, including the migration costs, whether GitHub is the right choice as an issue tracker,

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 2:12 PM Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Dec 12, 2019, at 5:58 AM, Sam McCall via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Short version: clangd would like to be able to build a client+server that > can make RPCs across the internet. An RPC system isn't a trivial dependency > and

Short version: clangd would like to be able to build a client+server that can make RPCs across the internet. An RPC system isn't a trivial dependency and rolling our own from scratch isn't appealing. Have other projects had a need for this? Any advice on how to approach such dependencies? -- Longer: clangd (a language server, like an IDE backend) builds an index of the project you're

Finally following up here... We ended up writing a JSON parser and checking it in under clangd/. We've been using that for a while now without hitting new problems. The header is here: https://reviews.llvm.org/source/clang-tools-extra/browse/clang-tools-extra/trunk/clangd/JSONExpr.h It's a DOM-based approach with objects on the heap. There's no streaming parser, though one could be

I can do it! -Raphael On Oct 16, 2017 12:48 PM, "Tanya Lattner via llvm-devmeeting" < llvm-devmeeting at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Can anyone help with this session? > > *Session 10 (2:10-3:40PM, General Session)* > Adding Index‐While‐Building and Refactoring to Clang > Advancing Clangd: Bringing persisted indexing to Clang tooling > > Thanks, > Tanya >

Hello, When running test-release.sh using GCC 5.4.0 we encountered this error : /home/anil/llvm1000_rc1_binary_upload/rc1/llvm-project/clang-tools-extra/clangd/Hover.cpp: In function ‘llvm::StringLiteral clang::clangd::{anonymous}::getNameForExpr(const clang::Expr*)’: /home/anil/llvm1000_rc1_binary_upload/rc1/llvm-project/clang-tools-extra/clangd/Hover.cpp:450:10: error: could not convert

As a part of upcoming new Clangd symbol index implementation, we would like to start support benchmarks of different Clangd pieces, such as index queries and code completion. There are already two projects in the LLVM tree using google/benchmark library while keeping its source code in-tree: libcxx (libcxx/utils/google-benchmark) and test-suite (test-suite/MicroBenchmarks/libs/benchmark-1.3.0).

On 04/24/2020 03:24 AM, Sam McCall wrote: > clangd's experience using github issues to track bugs (in a separate repo) has been very positive, and I'm glad you're pushing on this! > > Part of this has been that our issue tracker has been scoped to our subproject only, which is a scope that the tool works well for (on the user and developer side). > As such I don't

I'm happy to have this in the main LLVM repositiory. The version in the test suite should likely stay there because the test suite should be buildable w/o LLVM itself -- it is largely a distinct thing. We re-use lit, but not much else from LLVM, and we wouldn't want to install the benchmark library the way we do lit. One interesting point: we should have some way of running the in-tree

This is a template that takes care of managing plugin registries. I wrote it because I got the distinct feeling I was needlessly reinventing the wheel as I wrote a collector registry. I haven't converted anything else to use it, though. Still, it's orthogonal and has become stable in my usage, so I thought I'd submit it in advance. To get my collector registry going, all I

Hi all, Is there any way for converting any instruction that is loading or storing in memory into an instruction that just deal with registries? I'm not even sure if it is possible. Any suggestion? Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190306/b3428c7b/attachment.html>

LLVM Weekly - #225, Apr 23rd 2018 ================================= If you prefer, you can read a HTML version of this email at <http://llvmweekly.org/issue/225>. Welcome to the two hundred and twenty-fifth issue of LLVM Weekly, a weekly newsletter (published every Monday) covering developments in LLVM, Clang, and related projects. LLVM Weekly is brought to you by [Alex

Why does GN bot still send mails? I thought it got fixed? On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 1:44 PM <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> wrote: > > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder sanitizer-x86_64-linux-gn while building llvm. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-gn/builds/1820 > > Buildbot URL: