================
@@ -281,6 +285,21 @@ bool SemaPPC::CheckPPCBuiltinFunctionCall(const TargetInfo
&TI,
<< toString(Result, 10) << (IsUnsigned ? "0-4, 6" : "0, 5, 7") <<
"8"
<< Arg->getSourceRange();
}
+ case PPC::BI__builtin_amo_lwat_cond:
+ case PPC::BI__builtin_amo_ldat_cond:
+ case PPC::BI__builtin_amo_lwat_cond_s:
+ case PPC::BI__builtin_amo_ldat_cond_s: {
+ llvm::APSInt Result;
+ if (SemaRef.BuiltinConstantArg(TheCall, 1, Result))
+ return true;
+ unsigned Val = Result.getZExtValue();
+ if (llvm::is_contained({24u, 25u, 28u}, Val))
+ return false;
----------------
lei137 wrote:
Yes, so the function would basically test a `val` to a given `list` and error
if it's not in the list. The message that the value is not `in the range`
confused me originally. Maybe it's better in this case to create a new error
to indicate we are checking a valid list of values instead of a range? But I
am okay with that being in a follow up patch since I also feel these cases for
amo should be place above the section where we are dealing with CUSTOM_BUILTINs
. I think I left that comment on a previous patch but not sure if you saw that.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/169435
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
