================
@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -x hlsl -triple dxil-pc-shadermodel6.3-library
-finclude-default-header %s -emit-llvm -disable-llvm-passes -o - | FileCheck %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -x hlsl -triple dxil-pc-shadermodel6.0-compute
-finclude-default-header %s -emit-llvm -disable-llvm-passes -o - | FileCheck %s
+
+// Verify that a few different function types all get the NoRecurse attribute
+
+#define MAX 100
+
+struct Node {
+ uint value;
+ uint key;
+ uint left, right;
+};
+
+// CHECK: Function Attrs:{{.*}}norecurse
+// CHECK: define noundef i32 @"?Find@@YAIY0GE@UNode@@I@Z"(ptr noundef
byval([100 x %struct.Node]) align 4 %SortedTree, i32 noundef %key)
[[IntAttr:\#[0-9]+]]
+// CHECK: ret i32
+// Find and return value corresponding to key in the SortedTree
+uint Find(Node SortedTree[MAX], uint key) {
----------------
pow2clk wrote:
Probably not. I admit I got carried away, but in the process I discovered the
constraints of the current implementation and potentially introduced some
incidentals that might catch future issues by creating a more representative
shader. I realize that philosophies might differ here, but I'm reluctant to
change it.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/105907
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
