- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
Advanced Search
Today
Yesterday
+1 on zero's comments. Once they are implemented: LGTM!
Mon, Mar 27
There is no documentation on this operation. However, following the dialect [[documentation|https://mlir.llvm.org/docs/Dialects/LLVM/]]:
Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the semantics of the LLVM dialect operations must correspond to the semantics of LLVM IR instructions and any divergence is considered a bug.
It seems a bit wasteful to walk all the landingpads for each of the landingpads, but there might not be another way. It would be nice if one could compare the types with the result type of the personality function, but it does not exist for non-llvm functions.
Thu, Mar 23
LGTM! Thanks for pushing on this.
Tue, Mar 21
LGTM, modulo minor comments.
Tue, Mar 14
I only have one small comment apart from that this LGTM.
LGTM!
Sun, Mar 12
Dropped some comments.
Fri, Mar 10
address reviewer comments
Thu, Mar 2
After looking a bit closer over the tblgen part, I conclude that this looks good to me.
Wed, Mar 1
LGTM module minor comment.
Tue, Feb 28
I'm not familiar with this tblgen part, so I suggest to wait for answers of the downstream users. The rest is looking nice.
fix nullptr comparison
Feb 27 2023
Thanks for splitting this into a separate revision. LGTM!
It might make sense to split the change to have the LLVMInterfaces changes in a separate commit.
Feb 17 2023
address review comments
Make now potential null attr optional
LGTM module minor comment.
address review comments
In D144253#4134704, @gysit wrote:Also should this be an NFC commit?
Address review comments
Feb 16 2023
Thanks for all the comment addressing. LGTM!
rebased
address review comments
Feb 15 2023
LGTM!
Feb 14 2023
address review comments and move a builder to the cpp file.
Feb 13 2023
LGTM!
fix test label name
Feb 12 2023
Feb 10 2023
LGTM!
LGTM
Feb 9 2023
Added a helper vector to ensure that the graph elements have a deterministic order. Otherwise the cycle error message was non-deterministic, which could break tests.
address review comments
Thanks for pushing on this, LGTM!