- User Since
- Apr 30 2013, 5:34 PM (415 w, 4 d)
Thanks for the high-level doc!
Can you add a test for the conversion back and forth with LLVM IR?
I support making the timing infrastructure usable and pluggable outside of the pass manager! Thanks for working on this, I looked into it at some point but didn't need it badly enough to finish it.
Thu, Apr 15
If it works, that'll be good enough for me :)
Wed, Apr 14
Tue, Apr 13
On the other hand, all three leak checkers that we have tried don't cope with the transformation well at all
This whole design with MessageHandler, LSPServer, JSONTransport and how these are all intertwined isn't clear to me.
The individual class doc is not helping here, and I don't think improving these individual class is actually gonna solve it for me: I suspect I'd like to have some high-level description of how this fits. Maybe if expanding the classes themselves, the description could position them in the global scheme, and describe their role with respect to the others.
In the meantime, we should revert: if this is making clang entirely incompatible with Valgrind it'd be nice to have a plan. Can we bring this up on llvm-dev@ maybe?
To me that looks like a problem of "as-if" and definition of what a "leak" is: do we have a reference to a standard (or better LangRef) that would guide this here?
(to me it always looked like these were leaks in the first place, even if the leak checker was happy about them because technically "reachable")
LGTM, seems like a good basis to iterate on!
Thanks for the quick fix!
The ORC bug is closed, can you update all these tests back to use ORC?
Mon, Apr 12
Ideally the bug should be referred as TODO in all these tests, and also these tests should be mentioned in the bug so that when closing the bug we update the tests back.
Sun, Apr 11
Sat, Apr 10
Fri, Apr 9
properties LGTM as well.
Thu, Apr 8
I haven't worked around the specific requirement in the CRunnerUtils file and I suspect it requires some refactoring. But I don't know also the exact use-case and how to test it in order to be able to propose a path forward here, @nicolasvasilache can you help figure out who's using this and how?
Excellent documentation in the code!!
Actually we can't do that in mlir-translate.cpp like we did in mlir-opt.cpp because there is no dialect registry passed through this interface. We'd have to do it in ConvertToLLVMIR.cpp but I'm not sure it is desirable there, let me know if you have another idea I'll address this post-commit.
Wed, Apr 7
Tue, Apr 6
Right, if we look at our containers, we also find APIs that don't match exactly the standard (DenseMap::find_as or insert_as for example, or SmallVector::pop_back_val), so yes someone swapping std::vector for SmallVector may be surprised.
also the issue of "Oh, I'm used to using x.match(a, b) - ah, bother, this is the standard thing that doesn't support x.match, I have to use visit(a, b, x) instead".
Mon, Apr 5
Sat, Apr 3
Fri, Apr 2
Thu, Apr 1
Wed, Mar 31
Can you please include detailed reasons in the description with revert commits in the future?
Tue, Mar 30
I don't know what's the best practice for gcc compatibility with respect to clang command line flags, adding Teresa and Richard here.
Address river's comment
Address Stella's comments
Mon, Mar 29
Also, thanks for sending the patch!
Is it possible to write a unit-test for it?
I think Christian will need to redeploy the image, I don't think it is automatic.