tbaederr wrote:
Sounds like an LGTM from Nikita, does anyone else have other reservations?
(Other than the missing release note)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/105789
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llv
nikic wrote:
> That's an interesting situation! I'm not sure what I'd expect the LLVM IR to
> be there. For Clang AST, we want to keep around the expression AST nodes. But
> for LLVM IR, perhaps it makes sense to drop anything without a value rather
> than mark it as undef?
No strong opinion,
github-actions[bot] wrote:
:warning: undef deprecator found issues in your code. :warning:
You can test this locally with the following command:
``bash
git diff -U0 --pickaxe-regex -S
'([^a-zA-Z0-9#_-]undef[^a-zA-Z0-9_-]|UndefValue::get)'
f66a5e220cbc2650a5843db854d0734d2aaa030f
AaronBallman wrote:
> For
>
> ```c++
> void f() {
> [[clang::annotate("B", (void)1, (void)2, 7)]] int j = 0;
> }
> ```
>
> The IR is:
>
> ```llvm
> @.str = private unnamed_addr constant [2 x i8] c"B\00", section
> "llvm.metadata"
> @.str.1 = private unnamed_addr constant [10 x i8] c"array.c
https://github.com/tbaederr updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/105789
>From 62c8614cd64e0b97b62eb5700ff39dd290bbeebf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Timm=20B=C3=A4der?=
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 08:54:12 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] [clang] Remove an incorrect assertion in Consta
tbaederr wrote:
For
```c++
void f() {
[[clang::annotate("B", (void)1, (void)2, 7)]] int j = 0;
}
```
The IR is:
```llvm
@.str = private unnamed_addr constant [2 x i8] c"B\00", section "llvm.metadata"
@.str.1 = private unnamed_addr constant [10 x i8] c"array.cpp\00", section
"llvm.metadata"
@.
erichkeane wrote:
> > CC @AaronBallman for an opinion about the AST represenation
>
> This is a bit awkward in that it's only used for the `annotate` attributes'
> argument lists, which should pass all of their arguments down to LLVM IR.
> However, we don't typically generate LLVM IR for disca
AaronBallman wrote:
> CC @AaronBallman for an opinion about the AST represenation
This is a bit awkward in that it's only used for the `annotate` attributes'
argument lists, which should pass all of their arguments down to LLVM IR.
However, we don't typically generate LLVM IR for discarded val
tbaederr wrote:
CC @AaronBallman for an opinion about the AST represenation
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/105789
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Sirraide wrote:
> Hm, what comment are you referring to exactly?
Ah, this one:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/d88876e74f7882643546becc544a771a5e5e9787/clang/include/clang/Sema/Sema.h#L1838-L1842
The main thing I’m (if only a bit) worried about is that some code somewhere
might be ex
tbaederr wrote:
> > I guess it might make sense to create the `ConstantExpr` in any case, even
> > for a `None` `APValue`?
>
> The comment above `ConstantFoldAttrArgs` seems to suggest that that’s what’s
> supposed to happen if the expression isn’t dependent—I don’t know if there’s
> any code
Sirraide wrote:
> I guess it might make sense to create the `ConstantExpr` in any case, even
> for a `None` `APValue`?
The comment above `ConstantFoldAttrArgs` seems to suggest that that’s what’s
supposed to happen if the expression isn’t dependent—I don’t know if there’s
any code that depend
tbaederr wrote:
I guess it might make sense to create the `ConstantExpr` in any case, even for
a `None` `APValue`? Dumping the `ConstantExpr` didn't print any `APValue`
though, so I was assuming that it ignores `None` anyway.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/105789
___
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Timm Baeder (tbaederr)
Changes
Evaluating the attribute expression can be successful without resulting in a
value. Namely, when the expression is of type void.
---
Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/105789.diff
2 Fil
https://github.com/tbaederr created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/105789
Evaluating the attribute expression can be successful without resulting in a
value. Namely, when the expression is of type void.
>From 920eb8d753070b72b8ba0b2766333d7db9bed0a9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From:
15 matches
Mail list logo
