question, can we get rid of the BasicBlock versions of all inserters
and use Head == 0 to indicate the old case when GetInsertBlock == 0?
llvm-svn: 83216
functions when they are explicitly declared, e.g., via a function
template specialization or explicit template instantiation
declaration. Don't try to synthesize bodies for the special member
functions in this case; rather, check whether we have an implicit
declaration and, if so, synthesize the appropriate function
body. Fixes PR5084.
llvm-svn: 83212
set, these flags indicate the instructions source / def operands have special
register allocation requirement that are not captured in their register classes.
Post-allocation passes (e.g. post-alloc scheduler) should not change their
allocations. e.g. ARM::LDRD require the two definitions to be allocated
even / odd register pair.
llvm-svn: 83196
type is a template-id (e.g., basic_ostream<CharT, Traits>) and the
argument type is a class that has a derived class matching the
parameter type. Previously, we were giving up on template argument
deduction too early.
llvm-svn: 83177
to emit target-specific things at the beginning of the asm output. This
fixes a problem for PPC, where the text sections are not being kept together
as expected. The base class doInitialization code calls DW->BeginModule()
which emits a bunch of DWARF section directives. The PPC doInitialization
code then emits all the TEXT section directives, with the intention that they
will be kept together. But as I understand it, the Darwin assembler treats
the default TEXT section as a special case and moves it to the beginning of
the file, which means that all those DWARF sections are in the middle of
the text. With this change, the EmitStartOfAsmFile hook is called before
the DWARF section directives are emitted, so that all the PPC text section
directives come out right at the beginning of the file.
llvm-svn: 83176
overload candidates (but not the built-in ones). We still rely on the
underlying built-in semantic analysis to produce the initial
diagnostic, then print the candidates following that diagnostic.
One side advantage of this approach is that we can perform more validation
of C++'s operator overloading with built-in candidates vs. the
semantic analysis for those built-in operators: when there are no
viable candidates, we know to expect an error from the built-in
operator handling code. Otherwise, we are not modeling the built-in
semantics properly within operator overloading. This is checked as:
assert(Result.isInvalid() &&
"C++ binary operator overloading is missing
candidates!");
if (Result.isInvalid())
PrintOverloadCandidates(CandidateSet, /*OnlyViable=*/false);
The assert() catches cases where we're wrong in a +Asserts build. The
"if" makes sure that, if this happens in a production clang
(-Asserts), we still build the proper built-in operator and continue
on our merry way. This is effectively what happened before this
change, but we've added the assert() to catch more flies.
llvm-svn: 83175
Mike Stump