| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 250543
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Apparently, the style needs to be agreed upon first.
llvm-svn: 240390
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The patch is generated using this command:
tools/clang/tools/extra/clang-tidy/tool/run-clang-tidy.py -fix \
-checks=-*,llvm-namespace-comment -header-filter='llvm/.*|clang/.*' \
llvm/lib/
Thanks to Eugene Kosov for the original patch!
llvm-svn: 240137
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
files. Removing unused function getSubtargetInfo from HexagonMCCodeEmitter.cpp Removing deletion of copy construction and assignment operator since parent already deletes it.
llvm-svn: 239744
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
abomination.
For starters, this API is incredibly slow. In order to lookup the name
of a pass it must take a memory fence to acquire a pointer to the
managed static pass registry, and then potentially acquire locks while
it consults this registry for information about what passes exist by
that name. This stops the world of LLVMs in your process no matter
how little they cared about the result.
To make this more joyful, you'll note that we are preserving many passes
which *do not exist* any more, or are not even analyses which one might
wish to have be preserved. This means we do all the work only to say
"nope" with no error to the user.
String-based APIs are a *bad idea*. String-based APIs that cannot
produce any meaningful error are an even worse idea. =/
I have a patch that simply removes this API completely, but I'm hesitant
to commit it as I don't really want to perniciously break out-of-tree
users of the old pass manager. I'd rather they just have to migrate to
the new one at some point. If others disagree and would like me to kill
it with fire, just say the word. =]
llvm-svn: 227294
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
'final' and leave 'virtual' on some methods that are marked virtual without overriding anything and have no obvious overrides themselves. Hexagon edition
llvm-svn: 207508
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This requires a number of steps.
1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation
detail
2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User*
iterator.
3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the
Use to the User.
4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs.
5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users().
6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether
they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when
needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally
opaque.
Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the
Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and
switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the
renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make
any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would
touch all of the same lies of code.
The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice
regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s
rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits
a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird
extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have.
I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms
a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into
another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right
move.
However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up
a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =]
llvm-svn: 203364
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
in PEI a nd LocalStackSlot passes.
This changes the MachineFrameInfo API to use the new SSPLayoutKind information
produced by the StackProtector pass (instead of a boolean flag) and updates a
few pass dependencies (to preserve the SSP analysis).
The stack layout follows the same approach used prior to this change - i.e.,
only LargeArray stack objects will be placed near the canary and everything
else will be laid out normally. After this change, structures containing large
arrays will also be placed near the canary - a case previously missed by the
old implementation.
Out of tree targets will need to update their usage of
MachineFrameInfo::CreateStackObject to remove the MayNeedSP argument.
The next patch will implement the rules for sspstrong and sspreq. The end goal
is to support ssp-strong stack layout rules.
WIP.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2158
llvm-svn: 197653
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 181255
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 181233
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 181090
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
into their new header subdirectory: include/llvm/IR. This matches the
directory structure of lib, and begins to correct a long standing point
of file layout clutter in LLVM.
There are still more header files to move here, but I wanted to handle
them in separate commits to make tracking what files make sense at each
layer easier.
The only really questionable files here are the target intrinsic
tablegen files. But that's a battle I'd rather not fight today.
I've updated both CMake and Makefile build systems (I think, and my
tests think, but I may have missed something).
I've also re-sorted the includes throughout the project. I'll be
committing updates to Clang, DragonEgg, and Polly momentarily.
llvm-svn: 171366
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
methods instead.
llvm-svn: 171255
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
single attribute in the future.
llvm-svn: 170502
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Sooooo many of these had incorrect or strange main module includes.
I have manually inspected all of these, and fixed the main module
include to be the nearest plausible thing I could find. If you own or
care about any of these source files, I encourage you to take some time
and check that these edits were sensible. I can't have broken anything
(I strictly added headers, and reordered them, never removed), but they
may not be the headers you'd really like to identify as containing the
API being implemented.
Many forward declarations and missing includes were added to a header
files to allow them to parse cleanly when included first. The main
module rule does in fact have its merits. =]
llvm-svn: 169131
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We use the enums to query whether an Attributes object has that attribute. The
opaque layer is responsible for knowing where that specific attribute is stored.
llvm-svn: 165488
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 165205
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 157885
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Reorder includes while at it.
llvm-svn: 149863
|
|
|
llvm-svn: 146412
|
