[clang] [llvm] [Clang] Fix argument extensions in CGBlocks.cpp (PR #111740)

2024-11-06 Thread Jonas Paulsson via cfe-commits
JonPsson1 wrote: I will abandon this now since @efriedma-quic's patch (#113506) is the better approach and approved. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111740 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-b

[clang] [llvm] [Clang] Fix argument extensions in CGBlocks.cpp (PR #111740)

2024-11-06 Thread Jonas Paulsson via cfe-commits
https://github.com/JonPsson1 closed https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111740 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [llvm] [Clang] Fix argument extensions in CGBlocks.cpp (PR #111740)

2024-10-25 Thread Jonas Paulsson via cfe-commits
JonPsson1 wrote: > I looked to see how hard it would be to lower the clang type... seems like > it's not hard. Pushed #113506. Let me know what you think. > > If there's some complication I'm not seeing, I think your suggested API in > the current version of this patch makes sense... but using

[clang] [llvm] [Clang] Fix argument extensions in CGBlocks.cpp (PR #111740)

2024-10-23 Thread Eli Friedman via cfe-commits
efriedma-quic wrote: I looked to see how hard it would be to lower the clang type... seems like it's not hard. Pushed #113506. Let me know what you think. If there's some complication I'm not seeing, I think your suggested API in the current version of this patch makes sense... but using cla

[clang] [llvm] [Clang] Fix argument extensions in CGBlocks.cpp (PR #111740)

2024-10-21 Thread Jonas Paulsson via cfe-commits
JonPsson1 wrote: Ping! I'd love to get this check enabled by default after fixing the issues I see... This is the only one for Objective-C (the second one here came up after fixing the first one). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111740 __

[clang] [llvm] [Clang] Fix argument extensions in CGBlocks.cpp (PR #111740)

2024-10-16 Thread Jonas Paulsson via cfe-commits
JonPsson1 wrote: gentle ping... @efriedma-quic @nikic https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111740 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[clang] [llvm] [Clang] Fix argument extensions in CGBlocks.cpp (PR #111740)

2024-10-11 Thread Jonas Paulsson via cfe-commits
JonPsson1 wrote: Patch updated to pass an extension attribute for each retval/parameter, per your suggestion. There may possibly be cases of NoExt (struct-in-reg) that also need to be handled, but I will wait with that until I have a test case. Does this seem ok (for now at least), or would y

[clang] [llvm] [Clang] Fix argument extensions in CGBlocks.cpp (PR #111740)

2024-10-11 Thread Jonas Paulsson via cfe-commits
https://github.com/JonPsson1 updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111740 >From fb8b76aca00b97166e56fcaefc241850b2535f94 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonas Paulsson Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 18:51:22 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Add SExt attr to 2nd arg --- clang/lib/CodeGen/CGBlocks.

[clang] [llvm] [Clang] Fix argument extensions in CGBlocks.cpp (PR #111740)

2024-10-10 Thread Eli Friedman via cfe-commits
efriedma-quic wrote: > "clang::FunctionType" makes me wonder if there is actually a source-language > function type available so that the signedness of the extensions could be > inferred from it..? I thought these were internal calls to functions that > will be emitted directly on IR... The s

[clang] [llvm] [Clang] Fix argument extensions in CGBlocks.cpp (PR #111740)

2024-10-09 Thread Nikita Popov via cfe-commits
https://github.com/nikic commented: > I realize this is not the approach you had in mind, but it would at least be > nice to hear the reasoning as to why something more elaborate would be > preferred? Basically, because this is an ABI-dependent property, so we should let the existing ABI hand

[clang] [llvm] [Clang] Fix argument extensions in CGBlocks.cpp (PR #111740)

2024-10-09 Thread Eli Friedman via cfe-commits
efriedma-quic wrote: > I realize this is not the approach you had in mind, but it would at least be > nice to hear the reasoning as to why something more elaborate would be > preferred? Manually writing addParamAttr markings doesn't scale; there's no easy way to audit whether everything has b

[clang] [llvm] [Clang] Fix argument extensions in CGBlocks.cpp (PR #111740)

2024-10-09 Thread via cfe-commits
github-actions[bot] wrote: :warning: C/C++ code formatter, clang-format found issues in your code. :warning: You can test this locally with the following command: ``bash git-clang-format --diff e1a073c9d9b85804c46353c5a66c44fe212525ed fb8b76aca00b97166e56fcaefc241850b2535f94 --e

[clang] [llvm] [Clang] Fix argument extensions in CGBlocks.cpp (PR #111740)

2024-10-09 Thread via cfe-commits
llvmbot wrote: @llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-codegen Author: Jonas Paulsson (JonPsson1) Changes Add extension attributes in declarations of _Block_object_dispose and _Block_object_assign. In order to make this one-liners wherever needed, a new casting method FunctionCallee::getAsFunction()

[clang] [llvm] [Clang] Fix argument extensions in CGBlocks.cpp (PR #111740)

2024-10-09 Thread via cfe-commits
llvmbot wrote: @llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: Jonas Paulsson (JonPsson1) Changes Add extension attributes in declarations of _Block_object_dispose and _Block_object_assign. In order to make this one-liners wherever needed, a new casting method FunctionCallee::getAsFunction() has bee

[clang] [llvm] [Clang] Fix argument extensions in CGBlocks.cpp (PR #111740)

2024-10-09 Thread Jonas Paulsson via cfe-commits
https://github.com/JonPsson1 created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/111740 Add extension attributes in declarations of _Block_object_dispose and _Block_object_assign. In order to make this one-liners wherever needed, a new casting method FunctionCallee::getAsFunction() has been add