@lebedev.ri Thanks for the suggestion, I agree that getFull() and getEmpty() make more sense given that APInt uses getXXX() constructors so extensively.

A better alternative would have been to add a cl::aliasopt for '-h' in llvm's CommandLineParser when '-help' was first added. However, that's no longer possible since some llvm based tools already use '-h' for other purposes.

I couldn't find ready for review option from anywhere :( 'Add Action...' dropdown menu contains Plan Changes and Abandon Revision only.

Removes eraseValue() calls

Added test cases

I am unsure whether the problem with the build system as referred to by the remark "switch to -pthread once the rest of the build system can deal with it" is now solved, though. @tra, any idea?

return back memcpy, it is faster for long integers in about 10%

Fixed in rL356847.

LGTM - cheers

In D53945#1348511, @steven_wu wrote:

In D53945#1347562, @thakis wrote:

In D53945#1343312, @thakis wrote:

Out of interest, why aren't most of the tests for this lit tests? The usual llvm way of testing stuff is to write a small llvm tool using your library (which will be useful outside of a testing context too) and then use that to write lit tests.

Looks like this is now happening (rL350341). Are most of the unit tests going to move to lit tests now?

This is a different YAML format from r350341 but unittest is running as part of the lit as well, right?
A new tool can be created to read MachO YAML file but I want to understand your real concern here.

In D17407#1439029, @xbolva00 wrote:

Please check also https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40030

Using CMake's own FindThreads package is obviously the correct solution for finding the right compiler and linker options for enabling threading.

@riccibruno Done

In D59523#1440263, @aaron.ballman wrote:

In D59523#1440238, @jfb wrote:

This is very concrete: this specific code used to cause a crash. This test has exactly this purpose, nothing more. What I'm doing is extremely normal for LLVM.

Agreed, this is a normal practice for tests verifying that a crash no longer happens.

Add doxygen comments. Check the zero_undef flag.

In D59603#1437684, @Anastasia wrote:

Updated test to use root namespace (commented by Ronan).

Before any further review, could you please run clang-format on your patch (but not necessarily on the tests and not on the *.td files), wrap lines to 80 cols, and in general use complete sentences in comments (that is with proper punctuation and capitalization) ? To run clang-format on your patch you can use clang-format-diff. This is the command I use :

Diff from the corrected clang version is uploaded

i implemented the semantic the changes for if for, while and do while statement and the AST change to if. can you review it and tell me if it is fine so i implement the rest. i didn't update the test so they will fail.

to_string via to_chars implementation is ready.

Try again

Remove unrelated changes

Svn version

This patch appears to generate non-reproducible builds in some cases. I can craft a more minimal test case, but the following link (https://godbolt.org/z/sWucUZ) is what I have been using. If I run Clang multiple times, the output eventually swaps the order of some undef DEBUG_VALUE's. I am just passing "-O1 -g" with that .ii file. It isn't obvious to me yet what is causing this to be unordered/non-deterministic.