llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: None (yronglin)
Changes
This PR fix the issue reported by @alexfh
PR https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89567 fix the `#pragma unroll N`
crash issue in dependent context, but it's introduce an new issue:
If `N` is value dependent
https://github.com/yronglin updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90240
>From 131783211a23d007b5b6f1d5691306df4dec716b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: yronglin
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 01:38:34 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [Clang] Fix incorrect handling of #pragma {GCC} unroll N
in depe
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 bf67610a8ac07ec143f243f129eecd456aa63383
131783211a23d007b5b6f1d5691306df4dec716b --
https://github.com/yronglin created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90240
This PR fix the issue reported by @alexfh
PR https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/89567 fix the `#pragma unroll N`
crash issue in dependent context, but it's introduce an new issue:
If `N` is value depen
yronglin wrote:
I'd like to add more test to check CodeGen works well.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90240
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -109,16 +109,20 @@ static Attr *handleLoopHintAttr(Sema &S, Stmt *St, const
ParsedAttr &A,
SetHints(LoopHintAttr::Unroll, LoopHintAttr::Disable);
} else if (PragmaName == "unroll") {
// #pragma unroll N
-if (ValueExpr && !ValueExpr->isValueDependent()) {
-
@@ -109,16 +109,20 @@ static Attr *handleLoopHintAttr(Sema &S, Stmt *St, const
ParsedAttr &A,
SetHints(LoopHintAttr::Unroll, LoopHintAttr::Disable);
} else if (PragmaName == "unroll") {
// #pragma unroll N
-if (ValueExpr && !ValueExpr->isValueDependent()) {
-
@@ -124,3 +124,40 @@ void test(int *List, int Length) {
#pragma unroll
/* expected-error {{expected statement}} */ }
+
+using size_t = unsigned long long;
+
+template
erichkeane wrote:
This test isn't particularly good, since it is validating that it 'parses
@@ -124,3 +124,40 @@ void test(int *List, int Length) {
#pragma unroll
/* expected-error {{expected statement}} */ }
+
+using size_t = unsigned long long;
+
+template
yronglin wrote:
Agree!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90240
___
@@ -109,16 +109,20 @@ static Attr *handleLoopHintAttr(Sema &S, Stmt *St, const
ParsedAttr &A,
SetHints(LoopHintAttr::Unroll, LoopHintAttr::Disable);
} else if (PragmaName == "unroll") {
// #pragma unroll N
-if (ValueExpr && !ValueExpr->isValueDependent()) {
-
@@ -109,16 +109,20 @@ static Attr *handleLoopHintAttr(Sema &S, Stmt *St, const
ParsedAttr &A,
SetHints(LoopHintAttr::Unroll, LoopHintAttr::Disable);
} else if (PragmaName == "unroll") {
// #pragma unroll N
-if (ValueExpr && !ValueExpr->isValueDependent()) {
-
yronglin wrote:
I have question, for the case `#pragma unroll {0|1}`, which AST attribute node
make sense?
1.
```
LoopHintAttr 0x14b0bae08 Implicit unroll Unroll Disable
```
or
2.
```
LoopHintAttr 0x15780a408 Implicit unroll UnrollCount
Numeric
```
Do we need accurate AST or real semantics
https://github.com/yronglin updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90240
>From 131783211a23d007b5b6f1d5691306df4dec716b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: yronglin
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 01:38:34 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [Clang] Fix incorrect handling of #pragma {GCC} unroll N
in depe
https://github.com/yronglin updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90240
>From 131783211a23d007b5b6f1d5691306df4dec716b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: yronglin
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 01:38:34 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [Clang] Fix incorrect handling of #pragma {GCC} unroll N
in depe
@@ -124,3 +124,40 @@ void test(int *List, int Length) {
#pragma unroll
/* expected-error {{expected statement}} */ }
+
+using size_t = unsigned long long;
+
+template
yronglin wrote:
I've keep test case in this file, because clang currently has this issue
h
https://github.com/yronglin updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90240
>From 131783211a23d007b5b6f1d5691306df4dec716b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: yronglin
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 01:38:34 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] [Clang] Fix incorrect handling of #pragma {GCC} unroll N
in depe
https://github.com/yronglin edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90240
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/yronglin updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90240
>From 131783211a23d007b5b6f1d5691306df4dec716b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: yronglin
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 01:38:34 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] [Clang] Fix incorrect handling of #pragma {GCC} unroll N
in depe
https://github.com/erichkeane approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90240
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
yronglin wrote:
Thanks for your review!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90240
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/yronglin closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/90240
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
21 matches
Mail list logo
