================
@@ -401,6 +401,194 @@ void SemaHLSL::DiagnoseAttrStageMismatch(
<< (AllowedStages.size() != 1) << join(StageStrings, ", ");
}
+template <CastKind Kind>
+static void castVector(Sema &S, ExprResult &E, QualType &Ty, unsigned Sz) {
+ if (const auto *VTy = Ty->getAs<VectorType>())
+ Ty = VTy->getElementType();
+ Ty = S.getASTContext().getExtVectorType(Ty, Sz);
+ E = S.ImpCastExprToType(E.get(), Ty, Kind);
+}
+
+template <CastKind Kind>
+static QualType castElement(Sema &S, ExprResult &E, QualType Ty) {
+ E = S.ImpCastExprToType(E.get(), Ty, Kind);
+ return Ty;
+}
+
+static QualType handleFloatVectorBinOpConversion(
+ Sema &SemaRef, ExprResult &LHS, ExprResult &RHS, QualType LHSType,
+ QualType RHSType, QualType LElTy, QualType RElTy, bool IsCompAssign) {
+ bool LHSFloat = LElTy->isRealFloatingType();
+ bool RHSFloat = RElTy->isRealFloatingType();
+
+ if (LHSFloat && RHSFloat) {
+ if (IsCompAssign ||
+ SemaRef.getASTContext().getFloatingTypeOrder(LElTy, RElTy) > 0)
+ return castElement<CK_FloatingCast>(SemaRef, RHS, LHSType);
+
+ return castElement<CK_FloatingCast>(SemaRef, LHS, RHSType);
+ }
+
+ if (LHSFloat)
+ return castElement<CK_IntegralToFloating>(SemaRef, RHS, LHSType);
+
+ assert(RHSFloat);
+ if (IsCompAssign)
+ return castElement<clang::CK_FloatingToIntegral>(SemaRef, RHS, LHSType);
+
+ return castElement<CK_IntegralToFloating>(SemaRef, LHS, RHSType);
+}
+
+static QualType handleIntegerVectorBinOpConversion(
+ Sema &SemaRef, ExprResult &LHS, ExprResult &RHS, QualType LHSType,
+ QualType RHSType, QualType LElTy, QualType RElTy, bool IsCompAssign) {
+
+ int IntOrder = SemaRef.Context.getIntegerTypeOrder(LElTy, RElTy);
+ bool LHSSigned = LElTy->hasSignedIntegerRepresentation();
+ bool RHSSigned = RElTy->hasSignedIntegerRepresentation();
+ auto &Ctx = SemaRef.getASTContext();
+
+ // If both types have the same signedness, use the higher ranked type.
+ if (LHSSigned == RHSSigned) {
+ if (IsCompAssign || IntOrder >= 0)
+ return castElement<CK_IntegralCast>(SemaRef, RHS, LHSType);
+
+ return castElement<CK_IntegralCast>(SemaRef, LHS, RHSType);
+ }
+
+ // If the unsigned type has greater than or equal rank of the signed type,
use
+ // the unsigned type.
+ if (IntOrder != (LHSSigned ? 1 : -1)) {
+ if (IsCompAssign || RHSSigned)
+ return castElement<CK_IntegralCast>(SemaRef, RHS, LHSType);
+ return castElement<CK_IntegralCast>(SemaRef, LHS, RHSType);
+ }
+
+ // At this point the signed type has higher rank than the unsigned type,
which
+ // means it will be the same size or bigger. If the signed type is bigger, it
+ // can represent all the values of the unsigned type, so select it.
+ if (Ctx.getIntWidth(LElTy) != Ctx.getIntWidth(RElTy)) {
+ if (IsCompAssign || LHSSigned)
+ return castElement<CK_IntegralCast>(SemaRef, RHS, LHSType);
+ return castElement<CK_IntegralCast>(SemaRef, LHS, RHSType);
+ }
+
+ // This is a bit of an odd duck case in HLSL. It shouldn't happen, but can
due
+ // to C/C++ leaking through. The place this happens today is long vs long
+ // long. When arguments are vector<unsigned long, N> and vector<long long,
N>,
+ // the long long has higher rank than long even though they are the same
size.
----------------
llvm-beanz wrote:
I can add an assert, but I think it would just be verifying the conditions
higher up in the function. In theory this case can occur in any situation where
you have a two integer type of the same size but different ranks, and you can
mix sightedness.
For HLSL this is `long`/`long long`, because we define those to be the same,
but it could in a different situation be `int`/`long` (if `long` were 32-bits
as it is on some platforms).
For any case where the integer types have different ranks, the same size, and
the lower ranked type is unsigned, we want to choose either the LHS type for a
command assignment (ignoring the rank mismatch), or the unsigned variant of the
higher ranked type.
Without citing specific types, I think an assert would look something like this:
`assert(Ctx.getIntWidth(LElTy) == Ctx.getIntWidth(RElTy) && (IntOrder ==
(LHSSigned ? 1 : -1)));`
Which is really just repeating the conditions above with inverted checks.
Thoughts?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108659
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
