In general when structuring your code, the performance penalty for other targets when the conditions that can be easily tested are not met should pretty much be close to nonexistent. I would suggest keeping that in mind when submitting revisions.
- rC Clang
- 75,146 Commits
- ·
- Restricted Project
- Restricted Project
- Sat, Nov 17, 10:04 AM
- Subversion
- rCTE Clang Tools Extra
- 4,062 Commits
- ·
- Restricted Project
- Restricted Project
- Restricted Project
- Fri, Nov 16, 6:37 PM
- Subversion
- rCRT Compiler Runtime
- Fri, Nov 16, 5:02 PM
- Subversion
Today
Today
ctopper committed rL347143: [X86] Add support for matching PACKUSWB from a v64i8 shuffle..
[X86] Add support for matching PACKUSWB from a v64i8 shuffle.
ctopper committed rL347142: [X86] Add test case to show missed opportunity to use PACKUSWB in v64i8 shuffle….
[X86] Add test case to show missed opportunity to use PACKUSWB in v64i8 shuffle…
Sink BuryPointer from Clang into LLVM for reuse there
Sink BuryPointer from Clang into LLVM for reuse there
Move BuryPointer from Clang to LLVM for use in other LLVM tools
zturner updated the diff for D54667: [CodeView] Emit proper debug info for ref-qualified member functions.
Uploaded the wrong patch last time. This time I actually have the change for marking the pointers const.
zturner updated the diff for D54667: [CodeView] Emit proper debug info for ref-qualified member functions.
In my original output, you could still see one bit different on our this pointer records and MSVC's. Specifically, they mark them as const. I went ahead and did the same thing in this update.
Quuxplusone added inline comments to D50119: Compiler support for P1144R0 "__is_trivially_relocatable(T)".
Sat, Nov 17, 9:51 AM · Restricted Project
In D54246#1301940, @hwright wrote:@aaron.ballman I don't actually have the commit bit, can you commit this, or are we waiting for further review?
Sat, Nov 17, 9:31 AM · Restricted Project
dvyukov added inline comments to D54664: [tsan] Add __cxa_guard_acquire hooks to support cooperative scheduling.
dvyukov added inline comments to D54664: [tsan] Add __cxa_guard_acquire hooks to support cooperative scheduling.
- Update code to take into account what's wrong when fd==-1
- Add a test for GCOV_PREFIX
nagisa added inline comments to D54666: [InstCombine] Simplify funnel shifts based on demanded bits.
I don't understand the point here. Why would you want to include pre-processing-only commands in the compilation database?
[X86][SSE] Add shuffle demanded elts test case for PR39549
xbolva00 updated the diff for D52835: [Diagnostics] Check integer to floating point number implicit conversions.
Addressed comments, fixed tests
krytarowski added a comment to D54664: [tsan] Add __cxa_guard_acquire hooks to support cooperative scheduling.
Is this Linux-only?
brunoricci committed rC347138: [AST][NFC] Pack CXXDefaultInitExpr.
[AST][NFC] Pack CXXDefaultInitExpr
brunoricci committed rL347138: [AST][NFC] Pack CXXDefaultInitExpr.
[AST][NFC] Pack CXXDefaultInitExpr
brunoricci committed rC347137: [AST][NFC] Pack CXXDefaultArgExpr.
[AST][NFC] Pack CXXDefaultArgExpr
brunoricci committed rL347137: [AST][NFC] Pack CXXDefaultArgExpr.
[AST][NFC] Pack CXXDefaultArgExpr
brunoricci committed rL347136: [AST][NFC] Pack CXXThrowExpr.
[AST][NFC] Pack CXXThrowExpr
brunoricci committed rC347136: [AST][NFC] Pack CXXThrowExpr.
[AST][NFC] Pack CXXThrowExpr
I'm implementing the Version Reference for #30241 and find that some info emitted from option -x are crowded. If this not ok, I will revert this change.
xazax.hun added a comment to D54557: [analyzer] MoveChecker Pt.2: Restrict the warning to STL objects and locals..
In D54557#1300654, @NoQ wrote:In D54557#1299736, @xazax.hun wrote:It would be great to have a way to extend the list of (possibly non-stl) types to check. But I do understand that the analyzer does not have a great way to set such configuration options right now.
Do you envision room for another attribute here? I.e., a class attribute that says "this object is always unsafe to use after move, unless a method annotated with reinitializes is called"?
RKSimon added a comment to D54658: [X86] Add an AND with 255 to the v16i8 LowerMUL path with AVX2, but not AVX512.
It looks OK, but wouldn't we be better off trying to improve the truncation lowering?
Applied comments and extended condition with 'ShiftAmount == 8'
[llvm-objdump] Print a blank row at the end of sections
Yesterday
Yesterday
The "moved-from" terminology we adopt here still feels a bit weird to me, but i don't have a better suggestion, so i just removed the single-quotes so that to at least feel proud about what we have.
I am personally fine with this terminology, this checker corresponds to the cert rule EXP63-CPP. Do not rely on the value of a moved-from object, and moved from is also used in many places in CppCoreGuidelines.