- User Since
- Nov 7 2016, 7:34 PM (177 w, 6 d)
Feb 3 2020
Could anyone update me with how do they want me to proceed here? Is fixing the coercions enough to allow this to land? Do I need to make it target-specific? If so, which targets should keep the current behavior?
Jan 15 2020
The relevant discussion is here. From the "Parameter Passing" section in https://github.com/hjl-tools/x86-psABI/wiki/x86-64-psABI-1.0.pdf, there's no mention of sign-extension requirements for arguments.
Jan 14 2020
So I started doing that, and D72742 looked different enough that I thought I would submit it separately. Do you think that's on the right track? Or have I missed something? Thanks.
Dec 8 2019
Oh, and thanks for the utils/update_llc_test_checks.py tip, I was updating them manually and it was driving me crazy :)
Could I get some feedback on this? Does this look reasonable?
Jul 9 2019
Thanks for the review as always @Anastasia ^.^
Mar 13 2019
Thank you for the review! :)
Feb 26 2019
Thank you for all the reviews! :)
Feb 25 2019
Huh, somehow forgot to press "Submit" this morning :)
Landed with that change, thanks for the review @Anastasia!
Add CHECK tests.
Feb 22 2019
May 2 2017
Apr 28 2017
Apr 27 2017
I'm personally fine with this behavior in particular, given you can check the cursor you're querying to know if it's a typedef or alias specialization. Of course I'm not the only one using libclang, though, so I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinion.
Apr 26 2017
FWIW when I wrote D26663, I did it because arguments weren't inspectionable at all for using declarations. Actually both of them would've worked for me.
Revert + tests @ https://reviews.llvm.org/D32566
Updated per review comments, thanks :)
Apr 25 2017
Updated per comments, I used clang_TargetInfo_dispose following recent APIs instead of clang_disposeTargetInfo, let me know if I should change that.
Err, that comment was supposed to be a reply to https://reviews.llvm.org/D32348#737058, oh well, thanks again :)
Thanks a lot for the tip! :)
Sounds good to me, will do :)
Yes, please! I've submitted a few patches, but still no commit access.
Apr 22 2017
I'd appreciate if anyone could point me to an appropriate reviewer for this.
Apr 21 2017
Full diff, thanks @arphaman :)
Closing per advice in cfe-commits@.
Apr 20 2017
Apr 11 2017
Guy, perhaps you could also review this? (Just from looking at the blame log).
Apr 5 2017
Dec 16 2016
@skalinichev ping? Anything else I need to do to get this landed?
Dec 13 2016
Now without a really dumb off-by-one, hidden by the fact that we always indexed in-range and packs are only the last element.
Actually it was not so bad, thanks @skalinichev :)
Dec 12 2016
Thanks for the review, good catches :)
Dec 4 2016
Updated per comments. Not super happy with making these functions linear, but given template arguments aren't that numerous usually, it's probably acceptable.
Updated per comments, let me know if I should do anything else.
Thanks for the comments!
Dec 3 2016
Sorry @skalinichev, didn't know about those. Thanks for fixing.
Dec 2 2016
Now with proper tests :)
Hmm... You're right.
Nov 24 2016
(Also, please don't rush if I'm wrong being concerned about releases or similar, I'm fairly ignorant in that regard)
Updated to add a missing null check, and remove unnecessary diff noise.
Nov 21 2016
Nov 16 2016
Nov 15 2016
Updated to use LLVM's coding style (with the star to the right), and also to reflect that template argument packs are now inspectionable.
Nov 10 2016
Thanks for commiting the patch @akyrtzi (and for fixing up the test path, I kind of suspected there had to be a better place for it but didn't look too close apparently :P).
Nov 9 2016
Updated per comments, let me know if I can do anything else, thanks!
I thought the extra test would be helpful since I'm not aware of any test that used clang_getCursorExtent + clang_tokenize, but I guess I can revert that, no problem. Thanks for the review! :)
Guy, I added you as a reviewer looking at the blame log, feel free to redirect since it's my first patch to LLVM. Thanks!