This flag suppresses warnings produced by the linker. In ld64 this has
an interesting interaction with -fatal_warnings, it silences the
warnings but the link still fails. Instead of doing that here we still
print the warning and eagerly fail the link in case both are passed,
this seems more reasonable so users can understand why the link fails.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127564
There is only compile-time tests in `dtor.pass.cpp`, so it could be made a
`dtor.compile.pass.cpp`. Instead, add a runtime test for testing the trivial
destructor behavior for `tuple`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109298
This environment variable can be set to control module
caching. It disables caching by setting the variable
empty. As such, it needs to be handled differently
from other environment variables here which are
assumed to not be empty.
The tests for `std::ranges::lazy_split_view` heavily use a wrapper class around
`std::string` because `std::string` was not `constexpr` until recently. Where
possible, remove the wrapper class and extra functionality no longer needed.
Remove `libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.adaptors/range.lazy.split/small_string.h`
and inline its one use remaining in
`libcxx/test/std/ranges/range.adaptors/range.lazy.split/general.pass.cpp`.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126663
The standard type is vastly more popular than the Abseil polyfill, so it
makes more sense to use it in documentation, even though the checker
actually understands both (and that fact is documented already).
When using the `script` Python repl, SB objects are printed in a way that gives
the user no information. The simplest example is:
```
(lldb) script lldb.debugger
<lldb.SBDebugger; proxy of <Swig Object of type 'lldb::SBDebugger *' at 0x1097a5de0> >
```
This output comes from the Python repl printing the `repr()` of an object.
None of the SB classes implement `__repr__`, and all print like the above.
However, many (most?, all?) SB classes implement `__str__`. Because they
implement `__str__`, a more detailed output can be had by `print`ing the
object, for example:
```
(lldb) script print(lldb.debugger)
Debugger (instance: "debugger_1", id: 1)
```
For convenience, this change switches all SB classes that implement to
`__str__` to instead implement `__repr__`. **The result is that `str()` and
`repr()` will produce the same output**. This is because `str` calls `__repr__`
for classes that have no `__str__` method.
The benefit being that when writing a `script` invocation, you don't need to
remember to wrap in `print()`. If that isn't enough motivation, consider the
case where your Python expression results in a list of SB objects, in that case
you'd have to `map` or use a list comprehension like `[str(x) for x in <expr>]`
in order to see the details of the objects in the list.
For reference, the docs for `repr` say:
> repr(object)
> Return a string containing a printable representation of an object. For
> many types, this function makes an attempt to return a string that would
> yield an object with the same value when passed to eval(); otherwise, the
> representation is a string enclosed in angle brackets that contains the
> name of the type of the object together with additional information often
> including the name and address of the object. A class can control what this
> function returns for its instances by defining a __repr__() method.
and the docs for `__repr__` say:
> object.__repr__(self)
> Called by the repr() built-in function to compute the “official” string
> representation of an object. If at all possible, this should look like a
> valid Python expression that could be used to recreate an object with the
> same value (given an appropriate environment). If this is not possible, a
> string of the form <...some useful description...> should be returned. The
> return value must be a string object. If a class defines __repr__() but not
> __str__(), then __repr__() is also used when an “informal” string
> representation of instances of that class is required.
>
> This is typically used for debugging, so it is important that the
> representation is information-rich and unambiguous.
Even if it were convenient to construct Python expressions for SB classes so
that they could be `eval`'d, however for typical lldb usage, I can't think of a
motivating reason to do so. As it stands, the only action the docs say to do,
that this change doesn't do, is wrap the `repr` string in `<>` angle brackets.
An alternative implementation is to change lldb's python repl to apply `str()`
to the top level result. While this would work well in the case of a single SB
object, it doesn't work for a list of SB objects, since `str([x])` uses `repr`
to convert each list element to a string.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127458
Operand's defining op may not be valid for adding to the worklist under
stict mode
Reviewed By: rriddle
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127180
As a follow up to D126686, this does the same fold for floating point
add and shuffle. In this case it is limited to reassoc either x[0]+x[1]
or x[1]+x[0] for both result[0] and results[1].
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127087
Tests for pthread_detach and thrd_detach have not been added. Instead, a
test for the underlying implementation has been added as it makes use of
an internal wait method to synchronize with detached threads.
Reviewed By: lntue, michaelrj
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D127479
Alex Brachet