[Lldb-commits] [clang] [lldb] [HLSL] Implement intangible AST type (PR #97362)

[Damyan Pepper via lldb-commits]

@@ -115,6 +116,18 @@ GlobalVariable *replaceBuffer(CGHLSLRuntime::Buffer &Buf) {
 
 } // namespace
 
+llvm::Type *CGHLSLRuntime::convertHLSLSpecificType(const Type *T) {
+  assert(T->isHLSLSpecificType() && "Not an HLSL specific type!");
+
+  // Check if the target has a specific translation for this type first.
+  if (llvm::Type *TargetTy = CGM.getTargetCodeGenInfo().getHLSLType(CGM, T))
+return TargetTy;
+
+  // TODO: What do we actually want to do generically here? OpenCL uses a
+  // pointer in a particular address space.
+  llvm_unreachable("Generic handling of HLSL types is not implemented yet");

damyanp wrote:

At what point will this become something we need to do?  Is there an issue 
tracking it?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97362
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [clang] [lldb] [HLSL] Implement intangible AST type (PR #97362)

[Damyan Pepper via lldb-commits]

damyanp wrote:

I see many places where extra cases have been added for the intangible types 
but no corresponding tests.  Is that ok?  How did you know to update these 
places?

I also don't see anywhere that actually successfully uses 
`__builtin_hlsl_resource_t`. Am I missing it, or should I not expect to see it?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97362
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [clang] [lldb] [HLSL] Implement intangible AST type (PR #97362)

[Damyan Pepper via lldb-commits]

https://github.com/damyanp approved this pull request.


https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97362
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits