- User Since
- Feb 4 2016, 3:03 PM (158 w, 5 d)
Fri, Feb 8
Thu, Feb 7
Addressing comments from @Hahnfeld. Thanks!
Wed, Feb 6
Mon, Feb 4
Jan 9 2019
Can you please provide a bit more context about when the client might want this function?
Nov 5 2018
Comments for the test updated. Thanks for the comment!
Friendly ping. Thanks!
Nov 4 2018
Oct 30 2018
@rsmith I see. Thank you for the clarification!
I think the context is Derived here. My understanding of http://wg21.link/p0968r0#2227 (in this patch's context) is that when Derived is aggregate initialized, the destructor for each element of Base is potentially invoked as well.
Oct 29 2018
Oct 25 2018
@dblaikie I see. The problem we're experiencing is that with Clang's naming scheme we end up having different function name between the original source and the preprocessed source (as macro expansion changes the column number). This doesn't work well for me if I want to use distcc on top of our caching system, as the caching scheme expects the output to be same as far as the original source has not been changed (regardless of it's compiled directly or first preprocessed then compiled), but the distcc preprocesses the source locally then sends it to the remote build machine (and we do not turn distcc on for all workflow). I wonder if you have any suggestion to resolve this issue? Thanks!
Oct 22 2018
@aprantl It is a debug info. If you compile test/CodeGenCXX/debug-info-anonymous.cpp file with clang -g2 -emit-llvm -S , you will find debug metadata something like distinct !DISubprogram(name: "foo<X::(anonymous enum at /home/twoh/llvms/llvm/tools/clang/test/CodeGenCXX/debug-info-anonymous.cpp:9:3)>", linkageName: "_Z3fooIN1XUt_EEiT_" ..., which will eventually be included in .debug_info section.
Oct 19 2018
Remove conflict line.
@joerg Sorry but I'm not sure if I understand your question. This doesn't pretend to honor source code order, but makes linker to place "hot" functions under .text.hot section (There's no guarantee of ordering between functions inside .hot.text section) while "cold" functions under .text.unlikely section. This is purely for performance.
Oct 18 2018
Rebase. Tests are provided in the clang counterpart (D34796).
Rebase. Sorry I somehow missed the recent comments. I addresses @davidxl's comment on documentation. Thanks!
Sep 19 2018
Sep 7 2018
Addressing comments from @echristo. Reverted option name change, and added a test case. Sorry I haven't work on this code for a while so it took time to invent a test case.
Sep 5 2018
Hello, I observed a case where atomic builtin generates libcall when the corresponding sync builtin generates an atomic instruction (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38846). It seems that the alignment checking for __atomic builtins (line 759 of this patch) results the difference, and wonder if the check is actually necessary. Could anyone please shed some light on understanding this? Thanks!
Aug 16 2018
Hello, I wonder if we need to keep linkonce_odr symbols live here as well. I observe a case that a vtable for template class initiated has linkonce_odr linkage and marked dead here, which results compiler crash at WholeProgramDevirt because the global variable for vtable doesn't have initializer (https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/lib/Transforms/IPO/WholeProgramDevirt.cpp#L676 assumes that GV has the initializer). Thanks!
Jul 16 2018
Addressing comments from @Hahnfeld. Thanks!
Apr 25 2018
Addressing comment from @mssimpso. Thanks!
Apr 24 2018
Hello @jlpeyton @tlwilmar, is there a chance that this breaks runtime/test/ompt/misc/api_calls_from_other_thread.cpp test? ompt_get_num_places() is expected to return 0 from the test but with this patch it returns 1, and I think it is because kmp_affinity_num_masks is set to 1 from kmp_create_affinity_none_places().
Apr 4 2018
Apr 3 2018
Apr 2 2018
Thanks @fhahn for the comments! I added comments about why we don't perform splitting for the callsites inside the landing pad. Please let me know if you think it is too verbose.
Addressing @junbuml's comments. Thanks!
Mar 31 2018
Mar 12 2018
Update test to check f2.llvm.0 as well.
@tejohnson Thanks for the clarification. Regarding hotness, I'm not sure if providing "some" hotness is better than leaving it as unknown if profile data is not provided (If profile data is given, as you said, VP metadata will be attached to the callsite). I'm afraid that synthesized hotness may confuse optimizers, but please let me know if you have different idea.
@tejohnson I think your right. What I meant was that when the metadata is imported to bar.o, it references f1 and f2 by their promoted names, which makes the declarations with the promoted names to be added. Did I get it right, or still miss something?
Dec 6 2017
Dec 5 2017
@jkorous-apple Got it. I agree that it would be better to move the comments to the header. Will land it soon. Thanks!
Dec 4 2017
Thanks @jkorous-apple for the comment. I think your suggestion is a more
precise description for the implementation, and adjusted the comments
Nov 29 2017
@jkorous-apple Thanks for the comments! Yeah, I was thinking of O(lenght_of_string) approach, but considering the complicatedness of the implementation (I guess the real implementation would be a bit more complex than your pseudo implementation to handle quote and '\n\r' '\r\n' cases) I decided to stay with O(length_of_string * number_of_endlines_in_string) but optimizing the number of move operations.
Nov 27 2017
Thanks @jkorous-apple for your comments. I modified the type for the variables and replaced unnecessary inserts and erases with updates.
Nov 20 2017
Addressing @vsapsai's comments. Thank you for the suggestion! Added test case actually finds an off-by-one error in the original patch. I improved the comments as well.
Nov 1 2017
Oct 25 2017
Oct 24 2017
Sep 29 2017
Sep 27 2017
Sep 25 2017
Sep 19 2017
Aug 28 2017
Fix a test.
Aug 25 2017
Aug 16 2017
Friendly ping. @davidxl, I think there's no harm to make clang consistent with gcc for compiler options, and I wonder if you have any concerns that I may miss. Thanks!
Aug 10 2017
Aug 8 2017
Addressing dblaikie's comments. Thanks!
Aug 7 2017
Aug 5 2017
I think it is generally good to match what GCC does to not to confuse people.
Aug 3 2017
Jul 31 2017
Update documentation. Please let me know if I need to update other documents as well. Thanks!
@davidxl I think it is theoretically possible, if the if branch is not taken on line 294. Did I miss something? Thanks!
Jul 28 2017
Delete unnecessary line from the test.
Jun 29 2017
@wmi Good call! I fixed the code per your suggestion. Thanks!