aaron.ballman added a comment.
It looks like this is missing parsing logic and test cases.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang-c/Index.h:1534-1539
+ /**
+ * A clang-builtin of unspecified value.
+ */
+ CXCursor_UnspecifiedValueExpr = 155,
+
+ CXCursor_LastExpr = CXCursor_UnspecifiedValueExpr,
----------------
I'm not certain we want to expose this via the C APIs. Those APIs are stable
APIs and this is exposing an LLVM IR implementation detail (in an area that's
traditionally been rather unclear and actively worked on in LLVM IR). I don't
know that we're ready to commit to never changing the behavior from LLVM's side.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/AST/Expr.h:4637-4639
+/// UnspecifiedValueExpr - clang-specific value __builtin_unspecified_value.
+/// This AST node represents freeze(poison) in LLVM IR.
+class UnspecifiedValueExpr : public Expr {
----------------
I don't think we should be using `unspecified` for the terms here -- that has a
specific meaning which is not modeled by freeze(poison).
```
3.19.3
unspecified value
valid value of the relevant type where this document imposes no requirements on
which value is chosen in any instance
```
specifically, freeze causes us to return the same value every time and the
interesting property about unspecified values is that each read may give you a
different value regardless of whether there's an intervening store (so it's
sort of like `volatile` in that regard).
(FWIW, I think exposing a builtin for generating actually unspecified values
[where you get a different value on every execution] would be a more compelling
builtin for general use.)
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/AST/Expr.h:4647
+ TokenLoc(Loc) {
+ setDependence(ExprDependence::None);
+ }
----------------
This is incorrect -- you should be calling `computeDependence()` and
implementing the correct logic there. For example, consider calling this
builtin on a (partially) dependent type -- we don't want to say the value has
no dependence given that we don't know what type it has, right?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/TreeTransform.h:11725
+TreeTransform<Derived>::TransformUnspecifiedValueExpr(UnspecifiedValueExpr *E)
{
+ return E;
+}
----------------
@erichkeane -- is this correct, or does work need to be done to instantiate the
underlying type if the expression is dependent?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136737/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136737
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
