This patch adds a formatter for `std::coroutine_handle`, both for libc++
and libstdc++. For the type-erased `coroutine_handle<>`, it shows the
`resume` and `destroy` function pointers. For a non-type-erased
`coroutine_handle<promise_type>` it also shows the `promise` value.
With this change, executing the `v t` command on the example from
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DebuggingCoroutines.html now outputs
```
(task) t = {
handle = coro frame = 0x55555555b2a0 {
resume = 0x0000555555555a10 (a.out`coro_task(int, int) at llvm-example.cpp:36)
destroy = 0x0000555555556090 (a.out`coro_task(int, int) at llvm-example.cpp:36)
}
}
```
instead of just
```
(task) t = {
handle = {
__handle_ = 0x55555555b2a0
}
}
```
Note, how the symbols for the `resume` and `destroy` function pointer
reveal which coroutine is stored inside the `std::coroutine_handle`.
A follow-up commit will use this fact to infer the coroutine's promise
type and the representation of its internal coroutine state based on
the `resume` and `destroy` pointers.
The same formatter is used for both libc++ and libstdc++. It would
also work for MSVC's standard library, however it is not registered
for MSVC, given that lldb does not provide pretty printers for other
MSVC types, either.
The formatter is in a newly added `Coroutines.{h,cpp}` file because there
does not seem to be an already existing place where we could share
formatters across libc++ and libstdc++. Also, I expect this code to grow
as we improve debugging experience for coroutines further.
**Testing**
* Added API test
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D132415
The header from 62e0681afb does something with
LLVM_FALLTHROUGH. Now that llvm-project has switched to C++17 and
LLVM_FALLTHROUGH uses have been migrated to [[fallthrough]], the header is
unneeded.
Reviewed By: JDevlieghere
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D131422
This patch moves `Analysis/FlowSensitive/NoopAnalysis.h` from `clang/unittests/` to `clang/include/clang/`, so that we can use it for doing context-sensitive analysis.
Reviewed By: ymandel, gribozavr2, sgatev
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130304
Between issues such as
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/56323, the fact that this
lowering (unlike the code in amdgpu-to-rocdl) does not correctly set
up bounds checks (and thus will cause page faults on reads that might
need to be padded instead), and that fixing these problems would,
essentially, involve replicating amdgpu-to-rocdl, remove
--vector-to-rocdl for being broken. In addition, the lowering does not
support many aspects of transfer_{read,write}, like supervectors, and
may not work correctly in their presence.
We (the MLIR-based convolution generator at AMD) do not use this
conversion pass, nor are we aware of any other clients.
Migration strategies:
- Use VectorToLLVM
- If buffer ops are particularly needed in your application, use
amdgpu.raw_buffer_{load,store}
A VectorToAMDGPU pass may be introduced in the future.
Reviewed By: ThomasRaoux
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129308
This patch deletes the now-unused `SourceLocationsLattice` class, along with its containing files and surrounding helper functions and tests.
Reviewed By: xazax.hun, ymandel, sgatev, gribozavr2
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128448
Followup to D128352. This patch pulls the `NoopLattice` class out from the `NoopAnalysis.h` test file into its own `NoopLattice.h` source file, and uses it to replace usage of `SourceLocationsLattice` in `UncheckedOptionalAccessModel`.
Reviewed By: ymandel, sgatev, gribozavr2, xazax.hun
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128356
Followup to D128352. This patch pulls the `NoopLattice` class out from the `NoopAnalysis.h` test file into its own `NoopLattice.h` source file, and uses it to replace usage of `SourceLocationsLattice` in `UncheckedOptionalAccessModel`.
Reviewed By: ymandel, sgatev, gribozavr2, xazax.hun
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128356
This commit contains a refactoring that merges AVRRelaxMemOperations
into AVRExpandPseudoInsts, so that we have a single place in code that
expands the STDWPtrQRr opcode.
Seizing the day, I've also fixed a couple of potential bugs with our
previous implementation (e.g. when the destination register was killed,
the previous implementation would try to .addDef() that killed
register, crashing LLVM in the process - that's fixed now, as proved by
the test).
Reviewed By: benshi001
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122533
A 1% increase in the number of clang-formatted files.
An additional 530 files have been added to LLVM, and an additional
450 files are now clang-format clean. Raising the overall % to 53%
There are now 8857 files clean out of 16432 (ignoring lit tests)
This wraps up from D119053. The 2 headers are moved as described,
fixed file headers and include guards, updated all files where the old
paths were detected (simple grep through the repo), and `clang-format`-ed it all.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119876
This relands 73e585e44d (and 0574b5fc65), with a fix for
the failing test (by using Optional<StringRef>s instead of
making StringRef::empty() mean absence of value).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118070
Makes lld-link work in a non-MSVC shell by autodetecting MSVC toolchain. Also
adds support for /winsysroot and a few other switches.
All this is done by refactoring to share code with clang-cl's existing support
for the same.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118070
A 1% increase in the number of clang-formatted files.
An additional 235 files have been added to LLVM, and an additional
268 files are now clang-format clean. Raising the overall % to 52%
There are now 8407 files clean out of 15902 (ignoring lit tests)
After removing the range type, Linalg does not define any type. The revision thus consolidates the LinalgOps.h and LinalgTypes.h into a single Linalg.h header. Additionally, LinalgTypes.cpp is renamed to LinalgDialect.cpp to follow the convention adopted by other dialects such as the tensor dialect.
Depends On D115727
Reviewed By: nicolasvasilache
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115728
Whilst the % clang-formatted remains the same, the number
of files added to the LLVM project has risen by almost by 259.
- 190 of them have been added clang-format clean.
- 69 files have been added unformatted. (lit tests should be excluded from this number)
- 291 files have been added to the list of files that are clang-format clean
- 101 files have either become unclean or have been removed
As this updates the clang-formatted-files there are now
8139 files that are clean which we can be used as a regression test when making changes to clang-format.
```
clang-format -verbose -n -files ./clang/docs/tools/clang-formatted-files.txt
```
We would like to move ThinLTO’s battle-tested file caching mechanism to
the LLVM Support library so that we can use it elsewhere in LLVM.
Patch By: noajshu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111371
NOTE: some files are being removed from those files that are clang-formatted
which means some lack of formatting is slipping through the net on reviews
This change now generates that list, and the change to clang-format allows
us to run clang-format quickly over these files via the list of files.
clang-format.exe -verbose -n --files=./clang/docs/tools/clang-formatted-files.txt
```
Clang-formating 7926 files
Formatting [1/7925] clang/bindings/python/tests/cindex/INPUTS/header1.h
..
Formatting [7925/7925] utils/bazel/llvm-project-overlay/llvm/include/llvm/Config/config.h
```
This is needed because putting all those files on the command line is too
long, and invoking 7900+ clang-formats is much slower (too slow to be honest)
Using this method it takes on 7.5 minutes (on my machine) to run
`clang-format -n` over all of the files (7925), this should result in us
testing any change quickly and easily.
We should be able to use rerunning this list to ensure that we don't regress
clang-format over a large code base, but also use it to ensure none of the
previous files which were 100% clang-formatted remain so.
(which the LLVM premerge checks should be enforcing)
Reviewed By: HazardyKnusperkeks
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111000
Balazs Benics