maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/clang/test/CodeGenCoroutines/coro-gro-exp-namespace.cpp

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

89 lines
2.8 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

[Coroutines] [Frontend] Lookup in std namespace first Now in libcxx and clang, all the coroutine components are defined in std::experimental namespace. And now the coroutine TS is merged into C++20. So in the working draft like N4892, we could find the coroutine components is defined in std namespace instead of std::experimental namespace. And the coroutine support in clang seems to be relatively stable. So I think it may be suitable to move the coroutine component into the experiment namespace now. This patch would make clang lookup coroutine_traits in std namespace first. For the compatibility consideration, clang would lookup in std::experimental namespace if it can't find definitions in std namespace. So the existing codes wouldn't be break after update compiler. And in case the compiler found std::coroutine_traits and std::experimental::coroutine_traits at the same time, it would emit an error for it. The support for looking up std::experimental::coroutine_traits would be removed in Clang16. Reviewed By: lxfind, Quuxplusone Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696
2021-11-04 11:50:30 +08:00
// Verifies lifetime of __gro local variable
// Verify that coroutine promise and allocated memory are freed up on exception.
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++1z -fcoroutines-ts -triple=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -emit-llvm -o - %s -disable-llvm-passes | FileCheck %s
namespace std::experimental {
template <typename... T> struct coroutine_traits;
template <class Promise = void> struct coroutine_handle {
coroutine_handle() = default;
static coroutine_handle from_address(void *) noexcept;
};
template <> struct coroutine_handle<void> {
static coroutine_handle from_address(void *) noexcept;
coroutine_handle() = default;
template <class PromiseType>
coroutine_handle(coroutine_handle<PromiseType>) noexcept;
};
} // namespace std::experimental
struct suspend_always {
bool await_ready() noexcept;
void await_suspend(std::experimental::coroutine_handle<>) noexcept;
void await_resume() noexcept;
};
struct GroType {
~GroType();
operator int() noexcept;
};
template <> struct std::experimental::coroutine_traits<int> {
struct promise_type {
GroType get_return_object() noexcept;
suspend_always initial_suspend() noexcept;
suspend_always final_suspend() noexcept;
void return_void() noexcept;
promise_type();
~promise_type();
void unhandled_exception() noexcept;
};
};
struct Cleanup {
~Cleanup();
};
void doSomething() noexcept;
// CHECK: define{{.*}} i32 @_Z1fv(
int f() {
// CHECK: %[[RetVal:.+]] = alloca i32
// CHECK: %[[GroActive:.+]] = alloca i1
// CHECK: %[[Size:.+]] = call i64 @llvm.coro.size.i64()
Revert "[Clang/Test]: Rename enable_noundef_analysis to disable-noundef-analysis and turn it off by default" This reverts commit aacfbb953eb705af2ecfeb95a6262818fa85dd92. Revert "Fix lit test failures in CodeGenCoroutines" This reverts commit 63fff0f5bffe20fa2c84a45a41161afa0043cb34.
2021-11-09 01:09:49 +08:00
// CHECK: call noalias nonnull i8* @_Znwm(i64 %[[Size]])
[Coroutines] [Frontend] Lookup in std namespace first Now in libcxx and clang, all the coroutine components are defined in std::experimental namespace. And now the coroutine TS is merged into C++20. So in the working draft like N4892, we could find the coroutine components is defined in std namespace instead of std::experimental namespace. And the coroutine support in clang seems to be relatively stable. So I think it may be suitable to move the coroutine component into the experiment namespace now. This patch would make clang lookup coroutine_traits in std namespace first. For the compatibility consideration, clang would lookup in std::experimental namespace if it can't find definitions in std namespace. So the existing codes wouldn't be break after update compiler. And in case the compiler found std::coroutine_traits and std::experimental::coroutine_traits at the same time, it would emit an error for it. The support for looking up std::experimental::coroutine_traits would be removed in Clang16. Reviewed By: lxfind, Quuxplusone Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696
2021-11-04 11:50:30 +08:00
// CHECK: store i1 false, i1* %[[GroActive]]
// CHECK: call void @_ZNSt12experimental16coroutine_traitsIJiEE12promise_typeC1Ev(
// CHECK: call void @_ZNSt12experimental16coroutine_traitsIJiEE12promise_type17get_return_objectEv(
// CHECK: store i1 true, i1* %[[GroActive]]
Cleanup cleanup;
doSomething();
co_return;
// CHECK: call void @_Z11doSomethingv(
// CHECK: call void @_ZNSt12experimental16coroutine_traitsIJiEE12promise_type11return_voidEv(
// CHECK: call void @_ZN7CleanupD1Ev(
// Destroy promise and free the memory.
// CHECK: call void @_ZNSt12experimental16coroutine_traitsIJiEE12promise_typeD1Ev(
// CHECK: %[[Mem:.+]] = call i8* @llvm.coro.free(
Revert "[Clang/Test]: Rename enable_noundef_analysis to disable-noundef-analysis and turn it off by default" This reverts commit aacfbb953eb705af2ecfeb95a6262818fa85dd92. Revert "Fix lit test failures in CodeGenCoroutines" This reverts commit 63fff0f5bffe20fa2c84a45a41161afa0043cb34.
2021-11-09 01:09:49 +08:00
// CHECK: call void @_ZdlPv(i8* %[[Mem]])
[Coroutines] [Frontend] Lookup in std namespace first Now in libcxx and clang, all the coroutine components are defined in std::experimental namespace. And now the coroutine TS is merged into C++20. So in the working draft like N4892, we could find the coroutine components is defined in std namespace instead of std::experimental namespace. And the coroutine support in clang seems to be relatively stable. So I think it may be suitable to move the coroutine component into the experiment namespace now. This patch would make clang lookup coroutine_traits in std namespace first. For the compatibility consideration, clang would lookup in std::experimental namespace if it can't find definitions in std namespace. So the existing codes wouldn't be break after update compiler. And in case the compiler found std::coroutine_traits and std::experimental::coroutine_traits at the same time, it would emit an error for it. The support for looking up std::experimental::coroutine_traits would be removed in Clang16. Reviewed By: lxfind, Quuxplusone Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696
2021-11-04 11:50:30 +08:00
// Initialize retval from Gro and destroy Gro
Revert "[Clang/Test]: Rename enable_noundef_analysis to disable-noundef-analysis and turn it off by default" This reverts commit aacfbb953eb705af2ecfeb95a6262818fa85dd92. Revert "Fix lit test failures in CodeGenCoroutines" This reverts commit 63fff0f5bffe20fa2c84a45a41161afa0043cb34.
2021-11-09 01:09:49 +08:00
// CHECK: %[[Conv:.+]] = call i32 @_ZN7GroTypecviEv(
[Coroutines] [Frontend] Lookup in std namespace first Now in libcxx and clang, all the coroutine components are defined in std::experimental namespace. And now the coroutine TS is merged into C++20. So in the working draft like N4892, we could find the coroutine components is defined in std namespace instead of std::experimental namespace. And the coroutine support in clang seems to be relatively stable. So I think it may be suitable to move the coroutine component into the experiment namespace now. This patch would make clang lookup coroutine_traits in std namespace first. For the compatibility consideration, clang would lookup in std::experimental namespace if it can't find definitions in std namespace. So the existing codes wouldn't be break after update compiler. And in case the compiler found std::coroutine_traits and std::experimental::coroutine_traits at the same time, it would emit an error for it. The support for looking up std::experimental::coroutine_traits would be removed in Clang16. Reviewed By: lxfind, Quuxplusone Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D108696
2021-11-04 11:50:30 +08:00
// CHECK: store i32 %[[Conv]], i32* %[[RetVal]]
// CHECK: %[[IsActive:.+]] = load i1, i1* %[[GroActive]]
// CHECK: br i1 %[[IsActive]], label %[[CleanupGro:.+]], label %[[Done:.+]]
// CHECK: [[CleanupGro]]:
// CHECK: call void @_ZN7GroTypeD1Ev(
// CHECK: br label %[[Done]]
// CHECK: [[Done]]:
// CHECK: %[[LoadRet:.+]] = load i32, i32* %[[RetVal]]
// CHECK: ret i32 %[[LoadRet]]
}