[CIR][Codegen][Bugfix] use record layout to generate index for a field #270
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 27, 2023
#270) This is a minor fix similar to the one introduced in #263. Basically, all calls to the `buildLValueForFieldInitialization` are even with the origin codegen `emitLValueForFieldInitialization` calls, i.e. the field index is calculated from the record layout, but not from the decl `field->getFieldIndex()`. Added just one test, because looks like we need to implement some `NYI` features first to test another places e.g. in `CIRGenExprAgg.cpp`, though I could miss something. Anyway, given the original codegen doesn't use `getFieldIndex` in these places, we also should not. All the remaining usages of `getFieldIndex` are ok.
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2023
#270) This is a minor fix similar to the one introduced in #263. Basically, all calls to the `buildLValueForFieldInitialization` are even with the origin codegen `emitLValueForFieldInitialization` calls, i.e. the field index is calculated from the record layout, but not from the decl `field->getFieldIndex()`. Added just one test, because looks like we need to implement some `NYI` features first to test another places e.g. in `CIRGenExprAgg.cpp`, though I could miss something. Anyway, given the original codegen doesn't use `getFieldIndex` in these places, we also should not. All the remaining usages of `getFieldIndex` are ok.
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 29, 2024
#270) This is a minor fix similar to the one introduced in #263. Basically, all calls to the `buildLValueForFieldInitialization` are even with the origin codegen `emitLValueForFieldInitialization` calls, i.e. the field index is calculated from the record layout, but not from the decl `field->getFieldIndex()`. Added just one test, because looks like we need to implement some `NYI` features first to test another places e.g. in `CIRGenExprAgg.cpp`, though I could miss something. Anyway, given the original codegen doesn't use `getFieldIndex` in these places, we also should not. All the remaining usages of `getFieldIndex` are ok.
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 23, 2024
#270) This is a minor fix similar to the one introduced in #263. Basically, all calls to the `buildLValueForFieldInitialization` are even with the origin codegen `emitLValueForFieldInitialization` calls, i.e. the field index is calculated from the record layout, but not from the decl `field->getFieldIndex()`. Added just one test, because looks like we need to implement some `NYI` features first to test another places e.g. in `CIRGenExprAgg.cpp`, though I could miss something. Anyway, given the original codegen doesn't use `getFieldIndex` in these places, we also should not. All the remaining usages of `getFieldIndex` are ok.
eZWALT
pushed a commit
to eZWALT/clangir
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 24, 2024
llvm#270) This is a minor fix similar to the one introduced in llvm#263. Basically, all calls to the `buildLValueForFieldInitialization` are even with the origin codegen `emitLValueForFieldInitialization` calls, i.e. the field index is calculated from the record layout, but not from the decl `field->getFieldIndex()`. Added just one test, because looks like we need to implement some `NYI` features first to test another places e.g. in `CIRGenExprAgg.cpp`, though I could miss something. Anyway, given the original codegen doesn't use `getFieldIndex` in these places, we also should not. All the remaining usages of `getFieldIndex` are ok.
eZWALT
pushed a commit
to eZWALT/clangir
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 24, 2024
llvm#270) This is a minor fix similar to the one introduced in llvm#263. Basically, all calls to the `buildLValueForFieldInitialization` are even with the origin codegen `emitLValueForFieldInitialization` calls, i.e. the field index is calculated from the record layout, but not from the decl `field->getFieldIndex()`. Added just one test, because looks like we need to implement some `NYI` features first to test another places e.g. in `CIRGenExprAgg.cpp`, though I could miss something. Anyway, given the original codegen doesn't use `getFieldIndex` in these places, we also should not. All the remaining usages of `getFieldIndex` are ok.
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 29, 2024
#270) This is a minor fix similar to the one introduced in #263. Basically, all calls to the `buildLValueForFieldInitialization` are even with the origin codegen `emitLValueForFieldInitialization` calls, i.e. the field index is calculated from the record layout, but not from the decl `field->getFieldIndex()`. Added just one test, because looks like we need to implement some `NYI` features first to test another places e.g. in `CIRGenExprAgg.cpp`, though I could miss something. Anyway, given the original codegen doesn't use `getFieldIndex` in these places, we also should not. All the remaining usages of `getFieldIndex` are ok.
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 29, 2024
#270) This is a minor fix similar to the one introduced in #263. Basically, all calls to the `buildLValueForFieldInitialization` are even with the origin codegen `emitLValueForFieldInitialization` calls, i.e. the field index is calculated from the record layout, but not from the decl `field->getFieldIndex()`. Added just one test, because looks like we need to implement some `NYI` features first to test another places e.g. in `CIRGenExprAgg.cpp`, though I could miss something. Anyway, given the original codegen doesn't use `getFieldIndex` in these places, we also should not. All the remaining usages of `getFieldIndex` are ok.
eZWALT
pushed a commit
to eZWALT/clangir
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 29, 2024
llvm#270) This is a minor fix similar to the one introduced in llvm#263. Basically, all calls to the `buildLValueForFieldInitialization` are even with the origin codegen `emitLValueForFieldInitialization` calls, i.e. the field index is calculated from the record layout, but not from the decl `field->getFieldIndex()`. Added just one test, because looks like we need to implement some `NYI` features first to test another places e.g. in `CIRGenExprAgg.cpp`, though I could miss something. Anyway, given the original codegen doesn't use `getFieldIndex` in these places, we also should not. All the remaining usages of `getFieldIndex` are ok.
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 29, 2024
#270) This is a minor fix similar to the one introduced in #263. Basically, all calls to the `buildLValueForFieldInitialization` are even with the origin codegen `emitLValueForFieldInitialization` calls, i.e. the field index is calculated from the record layout, but not from the decl `field->getFieldIndex()`. Added just one test, because looks like we need to implement some `NYI` features first to test another places e.g. in `CIRGenExprAgg.cpp`, though I could miss something. Anyway, given the original codegen doesn't use `getFieldIndex` in these places, we also should not. All the remaining usages of `getFieldIndex` are ok.
bruteforceboy
pushed a commit
to bruteforceboy/clangir
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 2, 2024
llvm#270) This is a minor fix similar to the one introduced in llvm#263. Basically, all calls to the `buildLValueForFieldInitialization` are even with the origin codegen `emitLValueForFieldInitialization` calls, i.e. the field index is calculated from the record layout, but not from the decl `field->getFieldIndex()`. Added just one test, because looks like we need to implement some `NYI` features first to test another places e.g. in `CIRGenExprAgg.cpp`, though I could miss something. Anyway, given the original codegen doesn't use `getFieldIndex` in these places, we also should not. All the remaining usages of `getFieldIndex` are ok.
Hugobros3
pushed a commit
to shady-gang/clangir
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 2, 2024
llvm#270) This is a minor fix similar to the one introduced in llvm#263. Basically, all calls to the `buildLValueForFieldInitialization` are even with the origin codegen `emitLValueForFieldInitialization` calls, i.e. the field index is calculated from the record layout, but not from the decl `field->getFieldIndex()`. Added just one test, because looks like we need to implement some `NYI` features first to test another places e.g. in `CIRGenExprAgg.cpp`, though I could miss something. Anyway, given the original codegen doesn't use `getFieldIndex` in these places, we also should not. All the remaining usages of `getFieldIndex` are ok.
keryell
pushed a commit
to keryell/clangir
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 19, 2024
llvm#270) This is a minor fix similar to the one introduced in llvm#263. Basically, all calls to the `buildLValueForFieldInitialization` are even with the origin codegen `emitLValueForFieldInitialization` calls, i.e. the field index is calculated from the record layout, but not from the decl `field->getFieldIndex()`. Added just one test, because looks like we need to implement some `NYI` features first to test another places e.g. in `CIRGenExprAgg.cpp`, though I could miss something. Anyway, given the original codegen doesn't use `getFieldIndex` in these places, we also should not. All the remaining usages of `getFieldIndex` are ok.
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 5, 2024
#270) This is a minor fix similar to the one introduced in #263. Basically, all calls to the `buildLValueForFieldInitialization` are even with the origin codegen `emitLValueForFieldInitialization` calls, i.e. the field index is calculated from the record layout, but not from the decl `field->getFieldIndex()`. Added just one test, because looks like we need to implement some `NYI` features first to test another places e.g. in `CIRGenExprAgg.cpp`, though I could miss something. Anyway, given the original codegen doesn't use `getFieldIndex` in these places, we also should not. All the remaining usages of `getFieldIndex` are ok.
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 18, 2025
#270) This is a minor fix similar to the one introduced in #263. Basically, all calls to the `buildLValueForFieldInitialization` are even with the origin codegen `emitLValueForFieldInitialization` calls, i.e. the field index is calculated from the record layout, but not from the decl `field->getFieldIndex()`. Added just one test, because looks like we need to implement some `NYI` features first to test another places e.g. in `CIRGenExprAgg.cpp`, though I could miss something. Anyway, given the original codegen doesn't use `getFieldIndex` in these places, we also should not. All the remaining usages of `getFieldIndex` are ok.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a minor fix similar to the one introduced in #263.
Basically, all calls to the
buildLValueForFieldInitializationare even with the origin codegenemitLValueForFieldInitializationcalls, i.e. the field index is calculated from the record layout, but not from the declfield->getFieldIndex().Added just one test, because looks like we need to implement some
NYIfeatures first to test another places e.g. inCIRGenExprAgg.cpp, though I could miss something.Anyway, given the original codegen doesn't use
getFieldIndexin these places, we also should not.All the remaining usages of
getFieldIndexare ok.