llvm dev - Jun 2015 - [LLVMdev] Out-of-source subclassses vs. LLVM's RTTI system

Hi all,

Is there a good way to add out-of-LLVM-source subclasses, without modifying
the corresponding in-source "Kind" enumeration?

As I play around with writing an AA pass, I'd like a good way to issue
warnings for cases where my AA pass can't handle a particular IR
construct.  I was thinking to report those warnings via
*llvm::LLVMContext::diagnose(
const DiagnosticInfo & DI )*.  None of the existing subclasses of
*DiangosticInfo* seems quite appropriate for my needs, so I wanted to
create my own subclass, outside of the LLVM source.

So I'm stuck between (a) wanting all of my code to reside outside of the
LLVM source, and (b) being obligated (I think) to modify the
*DiagnosticKind* enum.

Thanks, Christian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150624/25dbf1ec/attachment.html>

On 06/24/2015 06:20 PM, Christian Convey wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is there a good way to add out-of-LLVM-source subclasses, without
> modifying the corresponding in-source "Kind" enumeration?
>
> As I play around with writing an AA pass, I'd like a good way to issue
> warnings for cases where my AA pass can't handle a particular IR
> construct.  I was thinking to report those warnings via
> /llvm::LLVMContext::diagnose( const DiagnosticInfo & DI )/.  None of
the
> existing subclasses of /DiangosticInfo/ seems quite appropriate for my
> needs, so I wanted to create my own subclass, outside of the LLVM source.
>
> So I'm stuck between (a) wanting all of my code to reside outside of
the
> LLVM source, and (b) being obligated (I think) to modify the
> /DiagnosticKind/ enum.
Maybe have a look at Polly's lib/Analysis/ScopDetectionDiagnostic.cpp 
and lib/Analysis/ScopDetection.cpp. We use LLVM's diagnostics in a 
loadable module without modifying LLVM's DiagnosticKind enum.

Best,
Tobias

Hi Tobias

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>
wrote:
> Maybe have a look at Polly's lib/Analysis/ScopDetectionDiagnostic.cpp
and
> lib/Analysis/ScopDetection.cpp. We use LLVM's diagnostics in a loadable
> module without modifying LLVM's DiagnosticKind enum.
>
Thanks very much for the suggestion.  It looks like Polly's approach is the
same as my initial approach: just call the most-appropriate-seeming
llvm::emit...Remark...(...) method.

I can use that as a fallback approach, if needed.  But I was hoping
implement a function for emitting diagnostic info, where one of the
parameters was the severity level (llvm::DiagnosticSeverity).  I'm
particularly interested in drawing a distinction between "remarks"
(which
should be optionally filtered) and "warnings" (which should always be
sent
to errs())

The DiagnosticInfoOptimizationBase supports the exact set of details I care
about.  Unfortunately it's an abstract class, which is why I'm in my
current situation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150624/b5795748/attachment.html>