a constructor either. Just call the constructor directly. I'll look into
making this work with aggregate initialization some other time (when
I have someone with MSVC 2012 handy to test ideas).
llvm-svn: 202688
operand_values. The first provides a range view over operand Use
objects, and the second provides a range view over the Value*s being
used by those operands.
The naming is "STL-style" rather than "LLVM-style" because we have
historically named iterator methods STL-style, and range methods seem to
have far more in common with their iterator counterparts than with
"normal" APIs. Feel free to bikeshed on this one if you want, I'm happy
to change these around if people feel strongly.
I've switched code in SROA and LCG to exercise these mostly to ensure
they work correctly -- we don't really have an easy way to unittest this
and they're trivial.
llvm-svn: 202687
proposed std::iterator_pair which was in committee suggested to move
toward std::iterator_range. There isn't a formal paper yet, but there
seems little disagreement within the committee at this point so it seems
fine to provide our own version in the llvm namespace so we can easily
build range adaptors for the numerous iterators in LLVM's interfaces.
Note that I'm not really comfortable advocating a crazed range-based
migration just yet. The range stuff is still in a great deal of flux in
C++ and the committee hasn't entirely made up its mind (afaict) about
how it will work. So I'm mostly trying to provide the minimal
functionality needed to make writing easy and convenient range adaptors
for range based for loops easy and convenient. ;]
Subsequent patches will use this across the fundamental IR types, where
there are iterator views.
llvm-svn: 202686
It isn't appropriate for a tool to be stomping over the dependency files,
especially if the actual build uses a compiler other than Clang or the tool
cannot find all the headers for some reason (which would cause the existing
dependency file to be deleted).
If a tool actually needs to care about dependency files we can think about
adding a mechanism for getting to this information.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2912
llvm-svn: 202669
The goal is to make it possible for checks to emit diagnostics at levels
other than 'warning'.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2913
llvm-svn: 202668
The interaction between defaulted operators and move elision isn't
totally obvious, add a unit test so it doesn't break unintentionally.
llvm-svn: 202662
This adds support for the PPC "wc" inline asm constraint (used for allocating
individual CR bits). Support for this constraint type was recently added to the
LLVM PowerPC backend. Although gcc does not currently support allocating
individual CR bits, this identifier choice has been coordinated with the gcc
PowerPC team, and will be marked as reserved for this purpose in the gcc
constraints.md file.
Prior to this change, none of the multi-character PPC constraints were handled
correctly (the '^' escape character was not being added as required by the
parsing code in LLVM). This should now be fixed. I'll add tests for these other
constraints as support is added for them in the backend.
llvm-svn: 202658
Now that the PowerPC backend can track individual CR bits as first-class
registers, we should also have a way of allocating them for inline asm
statements. Because these registers are only one bit, if an output variable is
implicitly cast to a larger integer size, we'll get an any_extend to that
larger type (this is part of the existing target-independent logic). As a
result, regardless of the size of the output type, only the first bit is
meaningful.
The constraint identifier "wc" has been chosen for this purpose. Although gcc
does not currently support allocating individual CR bits, this identifier
choice has been coordinated with the gcc PowerPC team, and will be marked as
reserved for this purpose in the gcc constraints.md file.
llvm-svn: 202657
We mostly iterate over read-only values. Following a suggestion by Duncan P.N
Exons Smith, we use the construct 'const auto &' for this.
llvm-svn: 202651
clang-formats behaviour has changed for a couple of C++11 formattings. We adapt
Polly to ensure our formatting checks are clean again.
llvm-svn: 202650
clang-format requires a space before the ":" in the foreach loop. Even though
this is surprising to me, we follow this style to make our formatting
consistent with clang-format. I found that this clang-format style is used in a
couple of C++11 examples, hence I believe the fact that clang-format adds a
colon is not a bug but just something I was not used to yet.
llvm-svn: 202648
Evgeniy Stepanov