[clang] [Clang][Sema] fix crash in codegen stage when an lambda expression declared in an unevaluated context (PR #80802)

llvmbot wrote: @llvm/pr-subscribers-clang Author: Qizhi Hu (jcsxky) Changes Try to fix [issue](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/76674) When transform a lambda expression which is declared in an unevaluated context, `isInstantiationDependentType()` and `isVariablyModifiedType()`

[clang] [clang-tools-extra] [llvm] [AArch64] Add an AArch64 pass for loop idiom transformations (PR #72273)

shaojingzhi wrote: Hi! I wonder that have you conducted any tests to determine the potential performance increase of this pass in the SPEC2017 557xz benchmark? I attempted to apply it to the xz benchmark, but only one copy(--copies=1) demonstrated a significant increase(about 3%), but there wa

[clang] [Clang][Sema] fix crash in codegen stage when an lambda expression declared in an unevaluated context (PR #80802)

https://github.com/jcsxky updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80802 >From 6dbd0937e8ded4dd8f71afb876bb3930c309 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: huqizhi Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 14:06:40 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] [Clang][Sema] fix crash in codegen stage when an lambda expression decla

[clang] [Clang][Sema] fix crash in codegen stage when an lambda expression declared in an unevaluated context (PR #80802)

https://github.com/jcsxky updated https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80802 >From 741793c9584753e6e888c9824961501b676b1143 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: huqizhi Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 14:06:40 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] [Clang][Sema] fix crash in codegen stage when an lambda expression decla

[clang] Diagnose invalid fixed point conversion (PR #80763)

https://github.com/MaskRay approved this pull request. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80763 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[llvm] [clang-tools-extra] [clang] [PGO] Add ability to mark cold functions as optsize/minsize/optnone (PR #69030)

david-xl wrote: > > > > I don't understand, if you're saying the profile is accurate, then > > > > those functions are actually cold, so we should be able to mark them as > > > > optsize? > > > > > > > > > Accurate is not black or white. The current heuristic requires certain > > > level of

[clang-tools-extra] [clangd] forward clang-tidy's readability-identifier-naming fix to textDocument/rename (PR #78454)

HighCommander4 wrote: Looks pretty good! Are there further changes you're planning to make, or is this ready to graduate from "Draft" status? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78454 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http

[clang] Diagnose invalid fixed point conversion (PR #80763)

https://github.com/petrhosek approved this pull request. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80763 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[llvm] [clang] [AMDGPU] Emit a waitcnt instruction after each memory instruction (PR #79236)

https://github.com/Pierre-vh edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79236 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[llvm] [clang] [AMDGPU] Emit a waitcnt instruction after each memory instruction (PR #79236)

https://github.com/Pierre-vh requested changes to this pull request. When you made changes, you can click the "Re-request review" icon next to reviewers to put it back in the review queues :) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79236 ___ cfe-com

[llvm] [clang] [AMDGPU] Emit a waitcnt instruction after each memory instruction (PR #79236)

@@ -605,12 +606,197 @@ class SIGfx12CacheControl : public SIGfx11CacheControl { bool IsNonTemporal) const override; }; +class SIPreciseMemorySupport { Pierre-vh wrote: Why does it need to be a separate class hierarchy? It

[llvm] [clang] [AMDGPU] Emit a waitcnt instruction after each memory instruction (PR #79236)

@@ -0,0 +1,362 @@ +; RUN: llc -mtriple=amdgcn -mcpu=gfx900 -mattr=+amdgpu-precise-memory-op < %s | FileCheck %s -check-prefixes=GFX9 +; RUN: llc -mtriple=amdgcn -mcpu=gfx90a -mattr=+amdgpu-precise-memory-op < %s | FileCheck %s -check-prefixes=GFX90A +; RUN: llc -mtriple=amdgcn -

[llvm] [clang] [AMDGPU] Emit a waitcnt instruction after each memory instruction (PR #79236)

@@ -167,6 +167,10 @@ def FeatureCuMode : SubtargetFeature<"cumode", "Enable CU wavefront execution mode" >; +def FeaturePreciseMemory Pierre-vh wrote: Understood :) Can you remove the `amdgpu` prefix from the option? All target features are already specif

[llvm] [clang] [AMDGPU] Emit a waitcnt instruction after each memory instruction (PR #79236)

@@ -605,12 +606,197 @@ class SIGfx12CacheControl : public SIGfx11CacheControl { bool IsNonTemporal) const override; }; +class SIPreciseMemorySupport { +protected: + const GCNSubtarget &ST; + const SIInstrInfo *TII = nullptr; + + IsaVers

[clang] [llvm] [AMDGPU] Emit a waitcnt instruction after each memory instruction (PR #79236)

@@ -605,12 +606,197 @@ class SIGfx12CacheControl : public SIGfx11CacheControl { bool IsNonTemporal) const override; }; +class SIPreciseMemorySupport { +protected: + const GCNSubtarget &ST; + const SIInstrInfo *TII = nullptr; + + IsaVers

<    1   2   3   4   5