================
@@ -348,6 +391,77 @@ void SemaHLSL::handleNumThreadsAttr(Decl *D, const
ParsedAttr &AL) {
D->addAttr(NewAttr);
}
+void SemaHLSL::handleWaveSizeAttr(Decl *D, const ParsedAttr &AL) {
+ // validate that the wavesize argument is a power of 2 between 4 and 128
+ // inclusive
+ unsigned SpelledArgsCount = AL.getNumArgs();
+ if (SpelledArgsCount == 0 || SpelledArgsCount > 3)
+ return;
+
+ uint32_t Min;
+ if (!SemaRef.checkUInt32Argument(AL, AL.getArgAsExpr(0), Min))
+ return;
+
+ uint32_t Max = 0;
+ if (SpelledArgsCount > 1 &&
+ !SemaRef.checkUInt32Argument(AL, AL.getArgAsExpr(1), Max))
+ return;
+
+ uint32_t Preferred = 0;
+ if (SpelledArgsCount > 2 &&
+ !SemaRef.checkUInt32Argument(AL, AL.getArgAsExpr(2), Preferred))
+ return;
+ llvm::hlsl::WaveSize WaveSize(Min, Max, Preferred);
+ llvm::hlsl::WaveSize::ValidationResult ValidationResult =
WaveSize.validate();
----------------
bogner wrote:
What do the `WaveSize.validate()` function and the `ValidationResult` enum gain
us here? The logic below pretty much repeats everything that validate did, just
checking enums that are named after the various conditions rather than the
conditions themselves. Would it be simpler to just implement the logic here and
keep it out of the WaveSize object entirely?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101240
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
