|
Revision tags: llvmorg-20.1.0, llvmorg-20.1.0-rc3, llvmorg-20.1.0-rc2, llvmorg-20.1.0-rc1, llvmorg-21-init, llvmorg-19.1.7, llvmorg-19.1.6, llvmorg-19.1.5, llvmorg-19.1.4, llvmorg-19.1.3, llvmorg-19.1.2, llvmorg-19.1.1, llvmorg-19.1.0, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc4, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc3, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc2, llvmorg-19.1.0-rc1, llvmorg-20-init, llvmorg-18.1.8, llvmorg-18.1.7, llvmorg-18.1.6, llvmorg-18.1.5, llvmorg-18.1.4, llvmorg-18.1.3, llvmorg-18.1.2, llvmorg-18.1.1, llvmorg-18.1.0, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc4, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc3, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc2, llvmorg-18.1.0-rc1, llvmorg-19-init, llvmorg-17.0.6, llvmorg-17.0.5, llvmorg-17.0.4, llvmorg-17.0.3, llvmorg-17.0.2, llvmorg-17.0.1, llvmorg-17.0.0, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-17.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-18-init, llvmorg-16.0.6, llvmorg-16.0.5, llvmorg-16.0.4, llvmorg-16.0.3, llvmorg-16.0.2, llvmorg-16.0.1, llvmorg-16.0.0, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-16.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-17-init, llvmorg-15.0.7, llvmorg-15.0.6, llvmorg-15.0.5, llvmorg-15.0.4, llvmorg-15.0.3, llvmorg-15.0.2, llvmorg-15.0.1, llvmorg-15.0.0, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-15.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-16-init |
|
| #
76476efd |
| 25-Jul-2022 |
Muhammad Usman Shahid <[email protected]> |
Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics
This patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a
_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. This
changes the wording to b
Rewording "static_assert" diagnostics
This patch rewords the static assert diagnostic output. Failing a
_Static_assert in C should not report that static_assert failed. This
changes the wording to be more like GCC and uses "static assertion"
when possible instead of hard coding the name. This also changes some
instances of 'static_assert' to instead be based on the token in the
source code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
show more ...
|
| #
1da31190 |
| 21-Jul-2022 |
Erich Keane <[email protected]> |
Revert "Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion"
Looks like we again are going to have problems with libcxx tests that
are overly specific in their dependency on clang's diagnostics.
This
Revert "Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion"
Looks like we again are going to have problems with libcxx tests that
are overly specific in their dependency on clang's diagnostics.
This reverts commit 6542cb55a3eb115b1c3592514590a19987ffc498.
show more ...
|
| #
6542cb55 |
| 21-Jul-2022 |
Muhammad Usman Shahid <[email protected]> |
Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion
This patch is basically the rewording of the static assert statement's
output(error) on screen after failing. Failing a _Static_assert in C
should n
Rewording the "static_assert" to static assertion
This patch is basically the rewording of the static assert statement's
output(error) on screen after failing. Failing a _Static_assert in C
should not report that static_assert failed. It’d probably be better to
reword the diagnostic to be more like GCC and say “static assertion”
failed in both C and C++.
consider a c file having code
_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
In clang the output is like:
<source>:1:1: error: static_assert failed: oh no!
_Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
^ ~
1 error generated.
Compiler returned: 1
Thus here the "static_assert" is not much good, it will be better to
reword it to the "static assertion failed" to more generic. as the gcc
prints as:
<source>:1:1: error: static assertion failed: "oh no!"
1 | _Static_assert(0, "oh no!");
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Compiler returned: 1
The above can also be seen here. This patch is about rewording
the static_assert to static assertion.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129048
show more ...
|
| #
da1609ad |
| 29-Jun-2022 |
Corentin Jabot <[email protected]> |
Improve the formatting of static_assert messages
Display 'static_assert failed: message' instead of
'static_assert failed "message"' to be consistent
with other implementations and be slightly more
Improve the formatting of static_assert messages
Display 'static_assert failed: message' instead of
'static_assert failed "message"' to be consistent
with other implementations and be slightly more
readable.
Reviewed By: #libc, aaron.ballman, philnik, Mordante
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128844
show more ...
|
|
Revision tags: llvmorg-14.0.6, llvmorg-14.0.5, llvmorg-14.0.4, llvmorg-14.0.3, llvmorg-14.0.2, llvmorg-14.0.1, llvmorg-14.0.0, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-14.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-15-init, llvmorg-13.0.1, llvmorg-13.0.1-rc3, llvmorg-13.0.1-rc2, llvmorg-13.0.1-rc1, llvmorg-13.0.0, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-13.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-14-init, llvmorg-12.0.1, llvmorg-12.0.1-rc4, llvmorg-12.0.1-rc3, llvmorg-12.0.1-rc2, llvmorg-12.0.1-rc1, llvmorg-12.0.0, llvmorg-12.0.0-rc5, llvmorg-12.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-12.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-12.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-11.1.0, llvmorg-11.1.0-rc3, llvmorg-12.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-13-init, llvmorg-11.1.0-rc2, llvmorg-11.1.0-rc1, llvmorg-11.0.1, llvmorg-11.0.1-rc2, llvmorg-11.0.1-rc1, llvmorg-11.0.0, llvmorg-11.0.0-rc6, llvmorg-11.0.0-rc5, llvmorg-11.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-11.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-11.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-11.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-12-init, llvmorg-10.0.1, llvmorg-10.0.1-rc4, llvmorg-10.0.1-rc3, llvmorg-10.0.1-rc2 |
|
| #
31cbe0f2 |
| 01-Jun-2020 |
Louis Dionne <[email protected]> |
[libc++] Remove the c++98 Lit feature from the test suite
C++98 and C++03 are effectively aliases as far as Clang is concerned.
As such, allowing both std=c++98 and std=c++03 as Lit parameters is
ju
[libc++] Remove the c++98 Lit feature from the test suite
C++98 and C++03 are effectively aliases as far as Clang is concerned.
As such, allowing both std=c++98 and std=c++03 as Lit parameters is
just slightly confusing, but provides no value. It's similar to allowing
both std=c++17 and std=c++1z, which we don't do.
This was discovered because we had an internal bot that ran the test
suite under both c++98 AND c++03 -- one of which is redundant.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D80926
show more ...
|
|
Revision tags: llvmorg-10.0.1-rc1, llvmorg-10.0.0, llvmorg-10.0.0-rc6, llvmorg-10.0.0-rc5, llvmorg-10.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-10.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-10.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-10.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-11-init, llvmorg-9.0.1, llvmorg-9.0.1-rc3, llvmorg-9.0.1-rc2, llvmorg-9.0.1-rc1 |
|
| #
7c9844b6 |
| 23-Oct-2019 |
Stephan T. Lavavej <[email protected]> |
[libcxx][NFC] Strip trailing whitespace, fix typo.
|
| #
6b77ebdc |
| 23-Oct-2019 |
Louis Dionne <[email protected]> |
[NFC] Strip trailing whitespace from libc++
|
|
Revision tags: llvmorg-9.0.0, llvmorg-9.0.0-rc6, llvmorg-9.0.0-rc5, llvmorg-9.0.0-rc4, llvmorg-9.0.0-rc3, llvmorg-9.0.0-rc2, llvmorg-9.0.0-rc1, llvmorg-10-init, llvmorg-8.0.1, llvmorg-8.0.1-rc4, llvmorg-8.0.1-rc3, llvmorg-8.0.1-rc2, llvmorg-8.0.1-rc1 |
|
| #
36db4898 |
| 25-Mar-2019 |
Marshall Clow <[email protected]> |
Cleaup of requirements for optional. While researching LWG3196, I realized that optional did not reject 'const in_place_t' like it should. Added a test as well, and a check for arrays (which were alr
Cleaup of requirements for optional. While researching LWG3196, I realized that optional did not reject 'const in_place_t' like it should. Added a test as well, and a check for arrays (which were already disallowed, but now we get a better error message). Should not affect anyone's code.
llvm-svn: 356918
show more ...
|