================
@@ -2245,6 +2245,36 @@ bool SemaHLSL::CheckBuiltinFunctionCall(unsigned
BuiltinID, CallExpr *TheCall) {
break;
}
+ case Builtin::BI__builtin_hlsl_and: {
+ if (SemaRef.checkArgCount(TheCall, 2))
+ return true;
+ if (CheckVectorElementCallArgs(&SemaRef, TheCall))
+ return true;
+
+ // CheckVectorElementCallArgs(...) guarantees both args are the same type.
+ assert(TheCall->getArg(0)->getType() == TheCall->getArg(1)->getType() &&
+ "Both args must be of the same type");
+
+ // check that the arguments are bools or, if vectors,
+ // vectors of bools
+ QualType ArgTy = TheCall->getArg(0)->getType();
+ if (const auto *VecTy = ArgTy->getAs<VectorType>()) {
+ ArgTy = VecTy->getElementType();
+ }
+ if (!getASTContext().hasSameUnqualifiedType(ArgTy,
----------------
llvm-beanz wrote:
> We know the expected types because we have defined them in sema per builtin.
> Thats how `CheckAllArgsHaveFloatRepresentation`,
> `CheckFloatOrHalfRepresentations`, `CheckUnsignedIntRepresentation` came to
> be in the first place. The Expected types are specified in these sema rules.
> and a spot check to `hlsl_intrinsics.h` should show they are the correct
> expected types.
I think this is flawed logic. The source is ambiguous, we don't "know" the
expected type we're guessing it.
> What im proposing is that we pass the list of all the expected types instead
> of just picking one.
This sounds like a recipe for throwing out a lot of errors and making it really
hard for the user to process.
> `CheckFloatOrHalfRepresentations` currently used by `cross` is a wrapper for
> `CheckArgTypeIsCorrect`. The problem you raised about alerting on `float` and
> not`half` is caused because we are only passing one expected type to
> CheckArgTypeIsCorrect. Changing this to a list allows us to do a diangostic
> per expected type.
I don't think this solves the problem, I think it just makes us spew more
errors at the user forcing them to decode a stream of messages.
> Further switching to using `CheckScalarOrVector` has the same problem
> switching to it in the cross case would force you to do an error diagnostic
> on a "arbitrarily expected" type.
I'm not suggesting we switch cross to exactly `CheckScalarOrVector` as it is.
I'm stating that our current pattern is not providing good clear diagnostics to
our users, and we need to reconsider it. For `cross` we should be able to emit
a diagnostic that the arguments must be "16-bit or 32-bit floating point or
vectors of such types", which would be much clearer and more concise than a
spew of "expected float" and "expected half" diagnostics.
**For the issue in this PR:** `CheckScalarOrVector` does _exactly_ what we
want. It allows printing an error message that the arguments must be "`bool` or
vector of such type", which exactly describes the expected usage.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127098
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
