This is an archive of the discontinued LLVM Phabricator instance.

libcxx: Bring back unsigned return from wcstoull_l
ClosedPublic

Authored by cschlosser on Apr 11 2023, 2:44 PM.

Diff Detail

Event Timeline

cschlosser created this revision.Apr 11 2023, 2:44 PM
Herald added a project: Restricted Project. · View Herald TranscriptApr 11 2023, 2:44 PM
cschlosser requested review of this revision.Apr 11 2023, 2:44 PM
Herald added a project: Restricted Project. · View Herald TranscriptApr 11 2023, 2:44 PM
Herald added a reviewer: Restricted Project. · View Herald Transcript

Should I add a test for this as this is the second time (D141208) this has happened recently

philnik accepted this revision.Apr 11 2023, 2:47 PM
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Apr 11 2023, 2:47 PM

Should I add a test for this as this is the second time (D141208) this has happened recently

We don't have a musl configuration in the CI, otherwise this would have been caught.

cschlosser added a comment.EditedApr 11 2023, 11:58 PM

Should I add a test for this as this is the second time (D141208) this has happened recently

We don't have a musl configuration in the CI, otherwise this would have been caught.

I see, thanks.

The sanitizer builds are failing, I don't see how this is related though, especially as you mentioned that there isn't even a configuration for this part of the code.

Should I add a test for this as this is the second time (D141208) this has happened recently

We don't have a musl configuration in the CI, otherwise this would have been caught.

I see, thanks.

The sanitizer builds are failing, I don't see how this is related though, especially as you mentioned that there isn't even a configuration for this part of the code.

They are unrelated. I guess you don't have commit access?

Should I add a test for this as this is the second time (D141208) this has happened recently

We don't have a musl configuration in the CI, otherwise this would have been caught.

I see, thanks.

The sanitizer builds are failing, I don't see how this is related though, especially as you mentioned that there isn't even a configuration for this part of the code.

They are unrelated. I guess you don't have commit access?

No I don't, this is my first contribution.

Could you commit this for me please?

Also does it make sense to backport to 16?

Could you commit this for me please?

Can you please provide Author Name <email@domain> we should use to contribute this with proper attribution?

Also does it make sense to backport to 16?

I guess it does.

Thanks!

Could you commit this for me please?

Can you please provide Author Name <email@domain> we should use to contribute this with proper attribution?

I thought I added that to the commit but it should be Christoph Schlosser <cschlosser@google.com>.

Also does it make sense to backport to 16?

I guess it does.

Thanks!

Is there a way to do this from the Web UI or should it go through the same flow as this review?

This revision was landed with ongoing or failed builds.Jul 8 2023, 4:54 AM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.

Could you commit this for me please?

Can you please provide Author Name <email@domain> we should use to contribute this with proper attribution?

I thought I added that to the commit but it should be Christoph Schlosser <cschlosser@google.com>.

It was there, but it's not always the case.

Also does it make sense to backport to 16?

I guess it does.

Thanks!

Is there a way to do this from the Web UI or should it go through the same flow as this review?

Based on https://discourse.llvm.org/t/16-0-6-release/71344 there will be no more 16 releases. So it can't be backported.

I just landed this on your behalf so it will be in LLVM 17.