I wouldn't recommend writing code like the testcase; a function
parameter isn't atomic, so using an atomic type doesn't really make
sense. But it's valid, so clang shouldn't crash on it.
The code was assuming hasAggregateEvaluationKind(Ty) implies Ty is a
RecordType, which isn't true. Just use isRecordType() instead.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D102015
The ability to specify alignment was recently added, and it's an
important property which we should ensure is set as expected by
Clang. (Especially before making further changes to Clang's code in
this area.) But, because it's on the end of the lines, the existing
tests all ignore it.
Therefore, update all the tests to also verify the expected alignment
for atomicrmw and cmpxchg. While I was in there, I also updated uses
of 'load atomic' and 'store atomic', and added the memory ordering,
where that was missing.
This patch adds ObjectFilePCHContainerOperations uses the LLVM backend
to put the contents of a PCH into a __clangast section inside a COFF, ELF,
or Mach-O object file container.
This is done to facilitate module debugging by makeing it possible to
store the debug info for the types defined by a module alongside the AST.
rdar://problem/20091852
llvm-svn: 241620
This is a necessary prerequisite for debugging with modules.
The .pcm files become containers that hold the serialized AST which allows
us to store debug information in the module file that can be shared by all
object files that were built importing the module.
This reapplies r230044 with a fixed configure+make build and updated
dependencies and testcase requirements. Over the last iteration this
version adds
- missing target requirements for testcases that specify an x86 triple,
- a missing clangCodeGen.a dependency to libClang.a in the make build.
rdar://problem/19104245
llvm-svn: 230423
Most builtins date from before the "cmpxchg weak" was a gleam in the
C++ committee's eye, so fortunately not much needs to change. But a
few of them *do* acknowledge that failure is possible.
For these, we'll emit the usual cartesian product of cmpxchg
operations if we can't statically determine weakness. CodeGen can
sort it out later if the function gets inlined.
The only other non-trivial aspect of this is (I think) that we emit
the scalar expression for "IsWeak" once, at the beginning, and
propagate its value through the successive blocks. There's not much in
it, but it's slightly more consistent with the existing handling of
FailureOrder.
llvm-svn: 210932
This is a conservative check, because it's valid for the expression to be
non-constant, and in cases like that we just don't know whether it's valid.
rdar://problem/16242991
llvm-svn: 203561
Eli Friedman