User Details
- User Since
- Apr 11 2017, 5:18 AM (311 w, 4 d)
Yesterday
Thanks so much for seeing this through; I'm unusually looking forward to rebuilding LLVM this weekend!
Thu, Mar 30
I'm going to keep this CL open till someone comments, but after reading the relevant GCC bug, I'm not sure it's worth committing anymore.
Tue, Mar 28
Thu, Mar 23
Wed, Mar 22
LGTM from a diagnostic perspective!
And on this CL's side too
I think this corrects everything.
rebasing continues
swaps commits to see if that fixes CI (part 1)
swaps commits to see if that fixes CI
Tue, Mar 21
fixes breakage and adds FIXME
Mon, Mar 20
Thanks for working on this, it's much appreciated!
Mon, Mar 13
Thanks for working on this. I haven't contributed to libc++ in a very long time, so the project's policies may be different to what I'm asking for. Having said that, the following things would be good to do:
Would you be able to update the commit message to include a description that explains why this commit is necessary please?
Fri, Mar 10
LGTM pending other reviewers' commentary. Thanks for working on this!
Merged into D145284.
merges in D145438. This patch is ready for review now.
Wed, Mar 8
Mon, Mar 6
Fri, Mar 3
tidies up some stuff that I overlooked
adds dependency
fixes string goof
sorts artifacts so that they're output in index order
Thu, Mar 2
fixes something that wasn't supposed to be changed in the rebase
actually commits the files
removes something from a future commit
removes redundant line
Mar 2 2023
renames check identifiers
Feb 10 2023
Feb 7 2023
Feb 6 2023
Ping @aaron.ballman
Jan 30 2023
Ping @aaron.ballman @rsmith
Jan 25 2023
responds to feedback
- updates patch so that it meets what Aaron and I want, also meets most of Richard's feedback
- updates commit message
Jan 24 2023
Jan 12 2023
Jan 11 2023
Jan 10 2023
Thanks for working on this! Needs a bit of work, but we should be able to get this in very soon methinks.
Excellent, let's wait for @denik's feedback before merging, but this LGTM. Thank you for the patch!
Jan 6 2023
LGTM, thanks for fixing!
Dec 15 2022
Dec 9 2022
Dec 7 2022
LGTM
Dec 5 2022
Dec 2 2022
Dec 1 2022
responds to feedback
Nov 29 2022
though I find myself wondering if the "FormatDiagnostic" call should stay the same, and choose the legacy-reason only when a sarif reason doesn't exist? Or for some level of command line control?
The clang-side interface to this seems a touch clunky, and I fear it'll make continuing its use/generalizing its use less likely.
I don't understand why test_demangle.pass.cpp was considered too big to upload. Here's the diff:
@njames93 if you don't have any further concerns, I am going to merge this on Friday afternoon, as it will have been four months since there has been a maintainer's input.
Nov 28 2022
LGTM. Thanks for fixing this!