*** to conform to clang-format’s LLVM style. This kind of mass change has
*** two obvious implications:
Firstly, merging this particular commit into a downstream fork may be a huge
effort. Alternatively, it may be worth merging all changes up to this commit,
performing the same reformatting operation locally, and then discarding the
merge for this particular commit. The commands used to accomplish this
reformatting were as follows (with current working directory as the root of
the repository):
find . \( -iname "*.c" -or -iname "*.cpp" -or -iname "*.h" -or -iname "*.mm" \) -exec clang-format -i {} +
find . -iname "*.py" -exec autopep8 --in-place --aggressive --aggressive {} + ;
The version of clang-format used was 3.9.0, and autopep8 was 1.2.4.
Secondly, “blame” style tools will generally point to this commit instead of
a meaningful prior commit. There are alternatives available that will attempt
to look through this change and find the appropriate prior commit. YMMV.
llvm-svn: 280751
m_decl_objects is problematic because it assumes that each VarDecl has a unique
variable associated with it. This is not the case in inline contexts.
Also the information in this map can be reconstructed very easily without
maintaining the map. The rest of the testsuite passes with this cange, and I've
added a testcase covering the inline contexts affected by this.
<rdar://problem/26278502>
llvm-svn: 270474
The inlining semantics for C and C++ are different, which affects the test's expectation of the number of times the function should appear in the binary. In the case of this test, C semantics means there should be three instances of inner_inline, while C++ semantics means there should be only two.
On Windows, clang uses C++ inline semantics even for C code, and there doesn't seem to be a combination of compiler flags to avoid this.
So, for consistency, I've recast the test to use C++ everywhere. Since the test resided under lang/c, it seemed appropriate to move it to lang/cpp.
This does not address the other XFAIL for this test on Linux/gcc. See https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26710
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17650
llvm-svn: 262255
This is the conclusion of an effort to get LLDB's Python code
structured into a bona-fide Python package. This has a number
of benefits, but most notably the ability to more easily share
Python code between different but related pieces of LLDB's Python
infrastructure (for example, `scripts` can now share code with
`test`).
llvm-svn: 251532
Kate Stone