search for: immarg

...llowed * It will be incompatible with all other parameter attributes such as sret or returned For bikeshedding the name, I’m currently calling the attribute “constant”, but I think this is a bad name. It doesn’t allow arbitrary constants (such as ConstantExprs), so I think something more like “immarg” ‘or “immediate” would be better. -Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190205/d7265fbb/attachment.html>

Hello everyone, I've just uploaded a patch (https://reviews.llvm.org/D70261) to introduce a could of new token types to be used with constrained floating point intrinsics and, optionally, vector predicated intrinsics. These intrinsics may not be of interest to many of you, but I have a more general question. I would like some general feedback on the way I am proposing to use token arguments

> On Feb 5, 2019, at 6:55 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > There is something similar going on in clang in SemaChecking.cpp. The difference is that each target can write its own verification code, which may check things like value ranges, for example. > The scheme you're proposing would invent a new attribute (a widespread change)

Am So., 12. Jan. 2020 um 20:07 Uhr schrieb Chris Lattner < clattner at nondot.org>: > The central idea is to use a modifiable loop tree -- similar to > LoopInfo -- as the primary representation. LLVM-IR is converted to a > loop tree, then optimized and finally LLVM-IR is generated again for > subtrees that are considered profitable. This is not a new concept, it > has already