search for: getkindasenum

...support for the new attribute code produces unstable bitcode. The problem is in BitcodeWriter.cpp, where the new WriteAttributeGroupTable() writes out the attributes using this piece of code: if (Attr.isEnumAttribute()) { Record.push_back(0); Record.push_back(Attr.getKindAsEnum()); } else if (Attr.isAlignAttribute()) { Record.push_back(1); Record.push_back(Attr.getKindAsEnum()); Record.push_back(Attr.getValueAsInt()); getKindAsEnum() returns the actual value of the enum, which is then stored in the bitcode. This direct connectio...

I would like to add a target-dependent attribute to the LLVM IR, and the guidance in http://llvm.org/docs/HowToUseAttributes.html says that target-dependent attributes should not occupy a slot in the Attribute::AttrKind enum, but I have yet to find an attribute that is represented in the IR that does not also have a slot in the AttrKind enum. We are limited to 63 slots in the AttrKind enum

...()) RightAttrType = Align; > + else if (RA.isEnumAttribute()) RightAttrType = Enum; > + > + if (int Res = cmpNumbers(LeftAttrType, RightAttrType)) > + return Res; > + > + switch (LeftAttrType) { > + case Enum: > + if (int Res = cmpNumbers(LA.getKindAsEnum(), RA.getKindAsEnum())) > + return Res; > + break; > + case Align: > + if (int Res = cmpNumbers(LA.getValueAsInt(), RA.getValueAsInt())) > + return Res; > + break; > + case Other: > + if (int Res = cmpStrings(LA.getKind...

...ceable attribute not supported in raw format"); } diff --git a/lib/IR/Verifier.cpp b/lib/IR/Verifier.cpp index 1c54e9b..0f8f14c 100644 --- a/lib/IR/Verifier.cpp +++ b/lib/IR/Verifier.cpp @@ -759,6 +759,7 @@ void Verifier::VerifyAttributeTypes(AttributeSet Attrs, unsigned Idx, I->getKindAsEnum() == Attribute::StackProtect || I->getKindAsEnum() == Attribute::StackProtectReq || I->getKindAsEnum() == Attribute::StackProtectStrong || + I->getKindAsEnum() == Attribute::SafeStack || I->getKindAsEnum() == Attribute::NoRedZone || I->getKi...

Hi Nick, I tried to rework changes as you requested. One of patches (0004 with extra assertions) has been removed. > + bool isEquivalentType(Type *Ty1, Type *Ty2) const { > + return cmpType(Ty1, Ty2) == 0; > + } > > Why do we still need isEquivalentType? Can we nuke this? Yup. After applying all the patches isEquivalentType will be totally replaced with cmpType. All