Thanks for the reviews!

In D141375#4041360, @bader wrote:

LGTM.
I expect this to be a common issue for all single-source offloading programming models (i.e. CUDA and HIP in addition to SYCL and OpenMP offload). Probably we can generalize the code patterns used in this patch for all of them.

I came across a strange error when capturing arguments in a lambda inside another lambda. I filed an issue here - https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/59549

Functionally this looks ok to me. However I am not sure if CodeGenTypes is the 'right' place for this function to live, considering that other functions with similar functionality are in ASTContext - including overloads of getTargetAddressSpace( ). @erichkeane @aaron.ballman could you please take a look?

In D119045#3302129, @aaron.ballman wrote:

LGTM aside from some nits

Implemented review comments

• Remove unnecessary set method and set default value during construction instead
• Changed default address space for function pointer for avr target to 1.

Add program address space to TargetInfo. Targets with non-default address space for functions should explicitly set value.

Implement review comments - add a comment + remove unnecessary code

In D111566#3228949, @rjmccall wrote:

Block pointers are actually data pointers and should stay in the generic address space if they don't have an address space qualifier. That might require new logic.

Implemented review comment to move logic into function (getTargetAddressSpace) as opposed to call site.

Thanks for the reviews @dylanmckay and @rjmccall ! I agree that moving the logic for functions pointers to getTargetAddressSpace makes sense. However, I'm not sure what the consequences are, since that increases the impact of this change quite a bit. I'm not sure if I will have the time to deal with any issues that arise before I go on vacation for Christmas. I'll take a quick look sometime this week, and hopefully its a simple enough change. If not, I can do it in a follow-up PR as suggested above, unless someone objects.

Since this patch has been accepted by one code owner, and has been under review for over a month, I plan to submit it by the end of the week. If anyone has feedback/concerns, please comment on the review.

In D98895#3119027, @asavonic wrote:

In D98895#3118821, @eandrews wrote:

This patch causes a regression.

To reproduce - clang -cc1 -fsycl-is-device -triple spir64 test.cpp

test.cpp:x:3: error: 'bar<__float128>' requires 128 bit size '__float128' type support, but target 'spir64' does not support it
T bar() { return T(); };
  ^

I looked at it briefly, and I believe the issue is call to checkTypeSupport() in ActOnFinishFunctionBody(). I tried deleting the call but it breaks tests (E.g. L26 in x86_64-no-x87.cpp). @asavonic Please take a look. I will be reverting the patch if this cannot be fixed soon.

The diagnostic seems to be correct - this instance of bar returns an unsupported type. Why do you think it should not be diagnosed?

This patch causes a regression.

ping

In D112975#3101720, @rjmccall wrote:

For posterity in case someone tracks down this review: TC corresponds to an unspecified 128-bit format, which on some targets is a double-double format (like __ibm128_t) and on others is float128_t. The bug in the previous patch is that long double is only safe to use when it's known to be one of those formats.

Patch LGTM.

In D109950#3097652, @rjmccall wrote:

In D109950#3097544, @eandrews wrote:

In D109950#3097161, @rjmccall wrote:

Oh, yes, I think this should be preserving the old logic there and just adding a new clause for explicit requests for ibm128, right?

I do wonder whether that's the right priority between float128_t and a double-double long double. I think that particular configuration only exists on certain PPC targets; does anyone know what GCC does?

In D109950#3097161, @rjmccall wrote:

Oh, yes, I think this should be preserving the old logic there and just adding a new clause for explicit requests for ibm128, right?

This has changed the behavior for -

ping

Thanks for taking a look @yaxunl! I added a test.

Implemented review comment to restrict __stdcall default calling convention (for WinMain, wWinMain, and DllMain) to 32 bit Windows.

LGTM Thanks!

In D87701#2280246, @dmajor wrote:

This broke Firefox builds too, in one of our helper binaries that uses a wWinMain, although I'm having trouble writing a minimal reproducer for it. Simply making a barebones wWinMain program doesn't hit the error.

If the patch re-lands, please cc me and I'll re-test.

In D87701#2274860, @rnk wrote:

lgtm, thanks.

In D72242#1873017, @smeenai wrote:

I'm not sure why Phabricator is still showing Needs Review, but @rnk's approval should make this count as accepted.

Actually I just noticed it still says 'Needs review' above. I'm not sure what the protocol is. Can I push the patch?

Thanks! I'll push it shortly. Just running a final ninja check-all after updating workspace.

Thanks for taking a look Richard. This patch adds the required value-dependency check and sets type-dependency accordingly.

In D72242#1820908, @rnk wrote:

I think I liked the first version of this patch better. I would say, if the AST after instantiation remains the same as it was before D69950, then the first one seems like the right fix.

Semantic analysis for value dependent conditions is now skipped as per Erich's comment. Patch adds an argument to CheckBooleanCondition to still do the required analysis for noexcept expressions.

Thanks for taking a look Erich!

In D69950#1771340, @mstorsjo wrote:

In D69950#1771133, @eandrews wrote:

In D69950#1770138, @mstorsjo wrote:

This (when reapplied in https://reviews.llvm.org/rG878a24ee244a24c39d1c57e9af2) broke compilation of code that earlier built fine. A reduced example:

namespace glslang {
class TPoolAllocator {
  void operator=(TPoolAllocator);
};
template <class> class a {
  TPoolAllocator *b;
  void c() { allocator = *b; }
  TPoolAllocator allocator;
};
} // namespace glslang

With this patch, some errors in templates are diagnosed earlier (i.e. does not wait till instantiation). Since 'allocator' and 'b' aren't dependent, I think this is a valid diagnosis. GCC throws an error on this code upon instantiation. https://godbolt.org/z/X9Y-Vy

The original non-reduced case does build fine with GCC though (I'm fairly sure). I can try to reduce one later that still builds with GCC but fails with current clang.

In D69950#1770138, @mstorsjo wrote:

This (when reapplied in https://reviews.llvm.org/rG878a24ee244a24c39d1c57e9af2) broke compilation of code that earlier built fine. A reduced example:

namespace glslang {
class TPoolAllocator {
  void operator=(TPoolAllocator);
};
template <class> class a {
  TPoolAllocator *b;
  void c() { allocator = *b; }
  TPoolAllocator allocator;
};
} // namespace glslang

In D69950#1752044, @gribozavr2 wrote:

In D69950#1751894, @eandrews wrote:

In D69950#1751859, @gribozavr2 wrote:

hence not throwing the warning on any platform?

The way I read the buildbot breakage, an existing ClangTidy test passed before and after this change, but broke on Windows. The breakage was that the warnings stopped being produced.

The existing test does not have this warning. I modified the test to add the check for this warning since it is generated on Linux after my patch. It is not generated on Windows because of delayed template parsing.

Is it just that warning that is not generated, or all warnings in that test file?

In D69950#1751859, @gribozavr2 wrote:

hence not throwing the warning on any platform?

The way I read the buildbot breakage, an existing ClangTidy test passed before and after this change, but broke on Windows. The breakage was that the warnings stopped being produced.

The patch changes type dependency of field 'std::string s' and sets it based on field type (i.e. not type-dependent).

Thank you for letting me know. The patch has been reverted.

@rnk @gribozavr2 clang-tidy test "bugprone-string-integer-assignment.cpp" caused a bot fail on windows. From the logs it looks like the 'CHECK-FIXES' I added in that test is failing because the fix isn't applied. I am not sure why. I don't have a windows build set up and I assume a new build is going to take some time. I am not sure what the protocol for this is. Should I go ahead and revert my patch while I investigate the issue on Windows or should I just push a new patch deleting the 'CHECK-FIXES' while I look into the issue?

Thank you for taking a look Reid and Dmitri. There were no fails with check-all.

Thank you for letting me know. I did try reproducing the issue with check-all yesterday but was unable to. I do not think I build with 'clang-tools-extra' project enabled though. I'll take another look today.

In D61027#1627655, @gribozavr wrote:

Sorry, but this change broke ClangTidy tests: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x86_64-debian-fast/builds/16398. I reverted it.

Thanks for taking a look Reid! I rebased the patch and had a conflict with one of Richard's patches and so ran the lit tests again and noticed there are several new failures. I am taking a look at those now.

ping

I just realized I modified the summary when I uploaded a new patch, but did not add a comment about the changes I made. Based on feedback from the bug report (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40982), I changed my approach for this crash. This patch changes the type dependency of the member which causes the crash.

I ran the test you provided and it does throw errors without instantiation

I apologize for the confusion. I was working on an incorrect branch earlier, and so abandoned that patch and uploaded a new revision.

Thanks!

Upstreaming it first might be better, especially since the change seems to be trivial. Is this line addition the only change proposed for the benchmark library?

Yes this line is the only change.

Do you want me to submit the patch to the benchmark library? It seems that it would help to speedup the process.

That would be helpful. Thank you!

@kbobyrev I apologize if I was unclear in the comments. I was asking if the changes proposed in the comments are alright with you since they would involve modifying benchmark/CMakelists.txt (instead of llvm/CMakeLists.txt as discussed in mailing list). As Zachary mentioned in comments, _HAS_EXCEPTIONS should be set to 0 only when exceptions are disabled. Since exception handling for benchmarks is handled in benchmark/CMakeLists.txt, I think it makes most sense to add the definition there. I have now uploaded the proposed change for review.

In D52998#1259602, @lebedev.ri wrote:

In D52998#1258962, @eandrews wrote:

Yes. I understand. At the moment, exception handling flags are generated based on BENCHMARK_ENABLE_EXCEPTIONS in utils/benchmark/CMakeLists.txt . However, _HAS_EXCEPTIONS is not defined based on this (code below). The warnings are a result of this mismatch.

if (NOT BENCHMARK_ENABLE_EXCEPTIONS)
    add_cxx_compiler_flag(-EHs-)
    add_cxx_compiler_flag(-EHa-)
  endif()

I think it makes most sense to add definition for _HAS_EXCEPTIONS=0 here as opposed to modifying llvm/CMakeLists.txt.

Then i'd recommend/suggest to submit this upstream first.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not too familiar with CMake. @kbobyrev Please let me know what you think as well since you had suggested llvm/CMakeLists.txt.

I think it makes sense to include this case just to make the flag more complete. Also, we don't really match GCC behavior for this flag. GCC emits all static constants by default (when O0). When optimized, this flag has no effect on GCC. The negation is used to not emit the constants.

Yes. I understand. At the moment, exception handling flags are generated based on BENCHMARK_ENABLE_EXCEPTIONS in utils/benchmark/CMakeLists.txt . However, _HAS_EXCEPTIONS is not defined based on this (code below). The warnings are a result of this mismatch.

Thanks for the information Zachary.

I do not think defining _HAS_EXCEPTIONS=0 affects C++ exceptions in the application. I thought it only affected the STL. I will verify this and update you.

Alright. Thanks for the review. I will abandon this patch

@lebedev.ri is there a specific reason -Wtautological-unsigned-zero-compare was removed? All the issues I am aware of talks about comparisons with min/max.