The callback is expected to create a branch to the ContinuationBB (sometimes called FiniBB in some lambdas) argument when finishing. This creates problems:
1. The InsertPoint used for CodeGenIP does not need to be the end of a block. If it is not, a naive callback will insert a branch instruction into the middle of the block.
2. The BasicBlock the CodeGenIP is pointing to may or may not have a terminator. There is an conflict where to branch to if the block already has a terminator.
3. Some API functions work only with block having a terminator. Some workarounds have been used to insert a temporary terminator that is removed again.
4. Some callbacks are sensitive to whether the BasicBlock has a terminator or not. This creates a callback ordering problem where different callback may have different behaviour depending on whether a previous callback created a terminator or not. The problem also exists for FinalizeCallbackTy where some callbacks do create branch to another "continue" block, but unlike BodyGenCallbackTy does not receive the target as argument. This is not addressed in this patch.
With this patch, the callback receives an CodeGenIP into a BasicBlock where to insert instructions. If it has to insert control flow, it can split the block at that position as needed but otherwise no separate ContinuationBB is needed. In particular, a callback can be empty without breaking the emitted IR. If the caller needs the control flow to branch to a specific target, it can insert the branch instruction itself and pass an InsertPoint before the terminator to the callback.
Certain frontends such as Clang may expect the current IRBuilder position to be at the end of a basic block. In this case its callbacks must split the block at CodeGenIP before setting the IRBuilder position such that the instructions after CodeGenIP are moved to another basic block and before returning create a new branch instruction to the split block.
Some utility functions such as `splitBB` are supporting correct splitting of BasicBlocks, independent of whether they have a terminator or not, returning/setting the InsertPoint of an IRBuilder to the end of split predecessor block, and optionally omitting creating a branch to the split successor block to be added later.
Reviewed By: kiranchandramohan
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118409
This adds -no-opaque-pointers to clang tests whose output will
change when opaque pointers are enabled by default. This is
intended to be part of the migration approach described in
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/enabling-opaque-pointers-by-default/61322/9.
The patch has been produced by replacing %clang_cc1 with
%clang_cc1 -no-opaque-pointers for tests that fail with opaque
pointers enabled. Worth noting that this doesn't cover all tests,
there's a remaining ~40 tests not using %clang_cc1 that will need
a followup change.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D123115
OpenMP 5.1 added support for writing OpenMP directives using [[]]
syntax in addition to using #pragma and this introduces support for the
new syntax.
In OpenMP, the attributes take one of two forms:
[[omp::directive(...)]] or [[omp::sequence(...)]]. A directive
attribute contains an OpenMP directive clause that is identical to the
analogous #pragma syntax. A sequence attribute can contain either
sequence or directive arguments and is used to ensure that the
attributes are processed sequentially for situations where the order of
the attributes matter (remember:
https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.attr.grammar#4.sentence-4).
The approach taken here is somewhat novel and deserves mention. We
could refactor much of the OpenMP parsing logic to work for either
pragma annotation tokens or for attribute clauses. It would be a fair
amount of effort to share the logic for both, but it's certainly
doable. However, the semantic attribute system is not designed to
handle the arbitrarily complex arguments that OpenMP directives
contain. Adding support to thread the novel parsed information until we
can produce a semantic attribute would be considerably more effort.
What's more, existing OpenMP constructs are not (often) represented as
semantic attributes. So doing this through Attr.td would be a massive
undertaking that would likely only benefit OpenMP and comes with
additional risks. Rather than walk down that path, I am taking
advantage of the fact that the syntax of the directives within the
directive clause is identical to that of the #pragma form. Once the
parser recognizes that we're processing an OpenMP attribute, it caches
all of the directive argument tokens and then replays them as though
the user wrote a pragma. This reuses the same OpenMP parsing and
semantic logic directly, but does come with a risk if the OpenMP
committee decides to purposefully diverge their pragma and attribute
syntaxes. So, despite this being a novel approach that does token
replay, I think it's actually a better approach than trying to do this
through the declarative syntax in Attr.td.
Nikita Popov