Skip to content
  1. Dec 10, 2012
  2. Dec 04, 2012
    • David Blaikie's avatar
      Comment change made in r169304 as requested by Eric Christopher. · 67cb31eb
      David Blaikie authored
      llvm-svn: 169315
      67cb31eb
    • David Blaikie's avatar
      Reapply r160148 (reverted in r163570) fixing spurious breakpoints in modern GDB · 5a773bb6
      David Blaikie authored
      This reapplies the fix for PR13303 now with more justification. Based on my
      execution of the GDB 7.5 test suite this results in:
      
      expected passes: 16101 -> 20890 (+30%)
      unexpected failures: 4826 -> 637 (-77%)
      
      There are 23 checks that used to pass and now fail. They are all in
      gdb.reverse. Investigating a few looks like they were accidentally passing
      due to extra breakpoints being set by this bug. They're generally due to the
      difference in end location between gcc and clang, the test suite is trying to
      set breakpoints on the closing '}' that clang doesn't associate with any
      instructions.
      
      llvm-svn: 169304
      5a773bb6
  3. Dec 03, 2012
    • Eli Bendersky's avatar
      Fix PR12942: Allow two CUs to be generated from the same source file. · b42d1466
      Eli Bendersky authored
      Thanks Eric for the review.
      
      llvm-svn: 169142
      b42d1466
    • Chandler Carruth's avatar
      Use the new script to sort the includes of every file under lib. · ed0881b2
      Chandler Carruth authored
      Sooooo many of these had incorrect or strange main module includes.
      I have manually inspected all of these, and fixed the main module
      include to be the nearest plausible thing I could find. If you own or
      care about any of these source files, I encourage you to take some time
      and check that these edits were sensible. I can't have broken anything
      (I strictly added headers, and reordered them, never removed), but they
      may not be the headers you'd really like to identify as containing the
      API being implemented.
      
      Many forward declarations and missing includes were added to a header
      files to allow them to parse cleanly when included first. The main
      module rule does in fact have its merits. =]
      
      llvm-svn: 169131
      ed0881b2
  4. Dec 01, 2012
  5. Nov 27, 2012
  6. Nov 22, 2012
  7. Nov 21, 2012
  8. Nov 20, 2012
  9. Nov 19, 2012
  10. Nov 12, 2012
  11. Nov 07, 2012
  12. Nov 01, 2012
    • Chandler Carruth's avatar
      Revert the majority of the next patch in the address space series: · 5da3f051
      Chandler Carruth authored
      r165941: Resubmit the changes to llvm core to update the functions to
               support different pointer sizes on a per address space basis.
      
      Despite this commit log, this change primarily changed stuff outside of
      VMCore, and those changes do not carry any tests for correctness (or
      even plausibility), and we have consistently found questionable or flat
      out incorrect cases in these changes. Most of them are probably correct,
      but we need to devise a system that makes it more clear when we have
      handled the address space concerns correctly, and ideally each pass that
      gets updated would receive an accompanying test case that exercises that
      pass specificaly w.r.t. alternate address spaces.
      
      However, from this commit, I have retained the new C API entry points.
      Those were an orthogonal change that probably should have been split
      apart, but they seem entirely good.
      
      In several places the changes were very obvious cleanups with no actual
      multiple address space code added; these I have not reverted when
      I spotted them.
      
      In a few other places there were merge conflicts due to a cleaner
      solution being implemented later, often not using address spaces at all.
      In those cases, I've preserved the new code which isn't address space
      dependent.
      
      This is part of my ongoing effort to clean out the partial address space
      code which carries high risk and low test coverage, and not likely to be
      finished before the 3.2 release looms closer. Duncan and I would both
      like to see the above issues addressed before we return to these
      changes.
      
      llvm-svn: 167222
      5da3f051
  13. Oct 31, 2012
  14. Oct 30, 2012
  15. Oct 15, 2012
  16. Oct 11, 2012
  17. Oct 08, 2012
  18. Oct 04, 2012
  19. Oct 03, 2012
  20. Oct 02, 2012
  21. Sep 22, 2012
  22. Sep 13, 2012
    • Eric Christopher's avatar
      Recommit, with fixes: · e341776c
      Eric Christopher authored
          Add some support for dealing with an object pointer on arguments.
      
          Part of rdar://9797999
      
      which now supports adding the object pointer attribute to the
      subprogram as it should.
      
      llvm-svn: 163754
      e341776c
  23. Sep 12, 2012
  24. Sep 11, 2012
Loading