- User Since
- Dec 27 2014, 8:52 PM (142 w, 6 d)
Mon, Sep 18
Sun, Sep 17
Wed, Sep 13
Tue, Sep 12
Mon, Sep 11
TODO.txt says "future should use <atomic> for synchronization." I would have interpreted this as meaning that the line
Aug 8 2017
Aug 3 2017
I've updated D35863 to be actually correct AFAICT from my local testing; but I'm not sure what's the most appropriate way to get "fancy allocator" tests into libcxx's test suite. The way I did it locally is here:
Basically, I conditionally replace "test_allocator.h" with "test_fancy_allocator.h", and then re-run all the existing tests. "test_fancy_allocator" uses fancy pointers that carry with them a "payload" of the allocated size n, and then in a.deallocate(p,n) we assert that p.payload()==n. A bunch of list tests fail this assertion before this patch, and none fail after this patch.
Jul 28 2017
But if I'm overseeing reasons to issue a warning in this case, we could add an analogue of -Wshadow-uncaptured-local for this case. WDYT?
Jul 25 2017
Jul 18 2017
If the goal is fine-grained control over the heuristics for compiling switch statements, perhaps one should enumerate all the possible ways to lower switch statements --- jump-tables, lookup-tables, if-trees, if-chains, (more?) --- and add a separate flag for each of them.
...Although I'm not sure what purpose there'd really be in saying "This switch statement *must* be compiled into an if-else tree" or "this one *must* be a lookup table"; couldn't that end up being a pessimization one day, as the optimizer gets smarter?
Jun 26 2017
Mar 27 2017
Mar 10 2017
I notice that the Standard implies that std::unique_ptr<T> will work only with *object types* T, and yet the "object" wording is missing from shared_ptr.
Jan 11 2017
Jan 10 2017
Dec 29 2016
Dec 26 2016
PVS-Studio implements tons of checks of this variety. See e.g.
They don't have a catchy name for the category either, but perhaps "suspicious-" or "copypaste-" would do.
Dec 16 2016
The provided example (typoing "i" for "j") sounds like the sort of thing that PVS-Studio catches; maybe see what wording they use for that kind of mistake? Without investigating, I would suggest "cut-and-paste-error" or "likely-typo".
Dec 15 2016
LGTM. I wonder if rsmith is happy with the exact semantics of "shouldUseUndefinedBehaviorReturnOptimization"... but that seems like a tiny nit that's fixable post-commit anyway.
Nov 28 2016
Sep 8 2016
Jul 19 2016
May 5 2016
It seems like this proposed diagnostic and fixit, statistically speaking, is *never* correct.
In the cases where there is a code issue to be corrected, the diagnosable issue really seems to involve dataflow analysis:
Apr 15 2016
I would like to see a new version of http://reviews.llvm.org/D19105 with all the "1-bit-bitfield" diffs removed.
Right now, it's hard to see that there's *anything* in D19105 that's not a miscorrection of a 1-bit bitfield.
Apr 16 2015
Dec 28 2014
Dec 27 2014
Commented on a test. The functional change is way out of my league.
Also consider adding a "three-pass" test case similar to