For example, byval.
Skip the type attribute auto-upgrade if we already have the type.
I've actually seen this error of the ValueEnumerator missing a type
attribute's type in a non-opaque pointer context.
Reviewed By: nikic
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105138
4506f614cb fixed parsing of textual IR to
reject `ptr*`, but broke the auto-conversion of `i32**` to `ptr` with
`--force-opaque-pointers`.
Get that working again by refactoring LLParser::parseType to only send
`ptr`-spelled pointers into the type suffix logic when it's the return
of a function type. This also rejects `ptr addrspace(3) addrspace(2)`,
which 1e6303e60c invadvertently started
accepting. Just the default top-level error message for the
double-addrspace since I had trouble thinking of something nice;
probably it's fine as is (it doesn't look valid the way that `ptr*`
does).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D105146
Do this by making opaque pointers a valid pointer element type,
for which we implicitly create an opaque pointer (moving the logic
from getPointerTo into PointerType::get).
We'll never create something like a "pointer to opaque pointer",
but accept it in the API, because a lot of code reasonably assumes
that you can create a pointer to pointer type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104902
Add support for call of opaque pointer, currently only possible for
indirect calls.
This requires a bit of special casing in LLParser, as calls do not
specify the callee operand type explicitly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104740
Adjust assertions to use isOpaqueOrPointeeTypeMatches() and make
it return an opaque pointer result for an opaque base pointer. We
also need to enumerate the element type, as it is no longer
implicitly enumerated through the pointer type.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104655
For a GEP on an opaque pointer, also return an opaque pointer (or
vector of opaque pointer) result.
This requires explicitly enumerating the GEP source element type,
because it is now no longer implicitly enumerated as part of either
the source or result pointer types.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104652
FullTy is only necessary when we need to figure out what type an
instruction works with given a pointer's pointee type. However, we just
end up using the value operand's type, so FullTy isn't necessary.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102788
FullTy is only necessary when we need to figure out what type an
instruction works with given a pointer's pointee type. However, we just
end up using the value operand's type, so FullTy isn't necessary.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102788
No verifier changes needed, the verifier currently doesn't check that
the pointer operand's pointee type matches the GEP type. There is a
similar check in GetElementPtrInst::Create() though.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102744
Don't check that types match when the pointer operand is an opaque
pointer.
I would separate the Assembler and Verifier changes, but
verify-uselistorder in the Assembler test ends up running the verifier.
Reviewed By: dblaikie
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102450
The opaque pointer type is essentially just a normal pointer type with a
null pointee type.
This also adds support for the opaque pointer type to the bitcode
reader/writer, as well as to textual IR.
To avoid confusion with existing pointer types, we disallow creating a
pointer to an opaque pointer.
Opaque pointer types should not be widely used at this point since many
parts of LLVM still do not support them. The next steps are to add some
very simple use cases of opaque pointers to make sure they work, then
start pretending that all pointers are opaque pointers and see what
breaks.
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-May/150359.html
Reviewed By: dblaikie, dexonsmith, pcc
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101704
Arthur Eubanks