In D124207#3490324, @stellaraccident wrote:In D124207#3490221, @mehdi_amini wrote:per-project installation directory (useful for standalone)
Can you help me figuring out what this means? (which part of the code change does something about this here?)
Doesn't look like it applies to this patch. Maybe leaking from a related patch.
- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
Feed Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
May 6 2022
May 6 2022
Apr 25 2022
Apr 25 2022
I wasn't sure who to ask either.
Apr 21 2022
Apr 21 2022
dtzWill committed rGbb8c8751cf6b: [MLIR] prefer /bin/sh over /bin/bash for simple test scripts (authored by dtzWill).
[MLIR] prefer /bin/sh over /bin/bash for simple test scripts
FWIW this isn't quite enough for MLIR standalone but helps get things there. One issue is that the use of LLVM's TableGen.cmake instead of our own means that mlir-tblgen wants to be installed to LLVM_TOOLS_INSTALL_DIR which isn't great when building MLIR separately from LLVM (and keeping installation paths separate, such as for packaging purposes).
Mar 19 2022
Mar 19 2022
dtzWill committed rG02db3cfe7d69: mlir: set CMAKE_INCLUDE_CURRENT_DIR to fix out-of-tree builds (authored by dtzWill).
mlir: set CMAKE_INCLUDE_CURRENT_DIR to fix out-of-tree builds
Mar 19 2022, 4:24 PM · Restricted Project
Jan 11 2018
Jan 11 2018
Ping! Is this stalling on reviewer attention? If so, please submit to LLVM Weekly's review corner (assuming it works with current LLVM), see http://llvmweekly.org/reviewcorner for details.
Dec 8 2017
Dec 8 2017
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for accommodating my use-case anyway! :D.
Hmm, this change means very recent LLVM is required to build libunwind-- previously I was able to use recent libunwind/libcxx/libcxxabi with LLVM 5 and LLVM 4.
Oct 19 2017
Oct 19 2017
Wow, I've finally debugged some unwind failures to this on x86_64 Linux ...
- Call-frame optimization introduces it
- This fixes the cases I was investigating!!
Jul 13 2017
Jul 13 2017
dtzWill added a comment to D34121: [ubsan] Teach the pointer overflow check that "p - <unsigned> <= p" (PR33430).
In D34121#806978, @vsk wrote:@dtzWill do you have any further comments on this one?
I'd like to get another 'lgtm' before committing, and it'd be nice to get this in before llvm 5.0 branches (7/19).
FWIW we've been living on this for a few weeks internally without any issues:
https://github.com/apple/swift-clang/commit/3ebe7d87b9d545aebdd80452d0b79695ff871bce
Jun 13 2017
Jun 13 2017
dtzWill added a comment to D34121: [ubsan] Teach the pointer overflow check that "p - <unsigned> <= p" (PR33430).
Don't mean to block this, but just FYI I won't be able to look into this carefully until later this week (sorry!).
Jun 12 2017
Jun 12 2017
Sorry for missing this originally, as a perhaps interesting note:
the checks were extracted from a research prototype that worked at the IR level --where pointer itself is unsigned but the offsets (including the computed total offset) is a signed expression[1].
(we also tracked conversions and whatnot, so... well things were different. Anyway, sorry for missing this!)
May 29 2017
May 29 2017
I've built quite a bit with this (ground-up Linux distribution) which attests to it being fairly robust (no crashing or new errors not experienced with unpatched clang) and the bugs found so far are all true positives (few of which were caught and reported last time around).
May 17 2017
May 17 2017
dtzWill awarded D33305: [ubsan] Add a check for pointer overflow UB a Party Time token.
May 9 2017
May 9 2017
In D20322#750438, @regehr wrote:In D20322#750381, @vsk wrote:I"m not @dtzWill but I'm guessing he'll be happy for you to do this (same with me)!
Feb 24 2017
Feb 24 2017
Sorry for the delay!
Feb 14 2017
Feb 14 2017
dtzWill added a comment to D29369: [ubsan] Omit superflous overflow checks for promoted arithmetic (PR20193).
In D29369#673064, @vsk wrote:In D29369#672166, @dtzWill wrote:After some thought, can we discuss why this is a good idea?
The goal is to lower ubsan's compile-time + instrumentation overhead at -O0, since this reduces the friction of debugging a ubsan-instrumented project.
Feb 9 2017
Feb 9 2017
dtzWill requested changes to D29369: [ubsan] Omit superflous overflow checks for promoted arithmetic (PR20193).
After some thought, can we discuss why this is a good idea?
I've been bitten when attempting to use existence/nature of casts in the AST to reason about the original code, but this looks like it does the right thing in all the situations I can think of.
Jan 28 2017
Jan 28 2017
dtzWill added a comment to D28336: Replace addEarlyAsPossiblePasses callback with adjustPassManager.
In D28336#658899, @rampitec wrote:In D28336#658696, @dtzWill wrote:Looks like this was fixed for NVPTX in r293256, Hexagon earlier. Can confirm resolves the issue I was encountering, thanks!
(And I think you're right, it only seems to have occurred in the shared library variants)
But now undefined reference in AMDGPU haha, but not relating to PassManagerBuilder :).
Thanks and sorry I did not notice it right away. For some reason my builds do work, just as Linux shared build I did right now. Do you still see error building AMDGPU or is it already fixed as well?
Jan 27 2017
Jan 27 2017
dtzWill added a comment to D28336: Replace addEarlyAsPossiblePasses callback with adjustPassManager.
Looks like this was fixed for NVPTX in r293256, Hexagon earlier. Can confirm resolves the issue I was encountering, thanks!
Jan 26 2017
Jan 26 2017
dtzWill added a comment to D28336: Replace addEarlyAsPossiblePasses callback with adjustPassManager.
Breaks build on other platforms too, for example: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64be-linux-multistage/builds/1928/steps/build%20stage%201/logs/stdio
Jan 24 2017
Jan 24 2017
Thanks for the fix!
Jan 21 2017
Jan 21 2017
+1, I've been using trunk with this revision reverted since I need liblldELF as well. Would it fix all use cases if we added bits to install the libraries to add_lld_library?
May 17 2016
May 17 2016
Fixed test:
// RUN: %clangxx -fsanitize=pointer-overflow %s -o %t // RUN: %t 1 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=ERR // RUN: %t 0 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=SAFE // RUN: %t -1 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=SAFE
Hmm, this test actually is wonky if argv[0] happens to be negative when represented as intptr_t... which happens on -m32 for my machine. I'll see about constructing a better test case!