mirror of
https://github.com/RPCS3/llvm-mirror.git
synced 2024-11-25 12:12:47 +01:00
66c63456e2
This is not a new semantic feature. The syntax `(? 1, 2, 3)` was disallowed by the parser in a dag //expression//, but there were already ways to sneak a `?` into the operator field of a dag //value//, e.g. by initializing it from a class template parameter which is then set to `?` by the instantiating `def`. This patch makes `?` in the operator slot syntactically legal, so it's now easy to construct dags with an unset operator. Also, the semantics of `!con` are relaxed so that it will allow a combination of set and unset operator fields in the dag nodes it's concatenating, with the restriction that all the operators that are //not// unset still have to agree with each other. Reviewers: hfinkel, nhaehnle Reviewed By: hfinkel, nhaehnle Subscribers: hiraditya, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71195
25 lines
703 B
TableGen
25 lines
703 B
TableGen
// RUN: llvm-tblgen %s | FileCheck %s
|
|
// RUN: not llvm-tblgen -DERROR %s 2>&1 | FileCheck --check-prefix=ERROR %s
|
|
|
|
def op;
|
|
def otherop;
|
|
|
|
def test {
|
|
// CHECK: dag d = (? "hello":$world);
|
|
dag d = (? "hello":$world);
|
|
|
|
// CHECK: dag undefNeither = (op 1, 2);
|
|
dag undefNeither = !con((op 1), (op 2));
|
|
// CHECK: dag undefFirst = (op 1, 2);
|
|
dag undefFirst = !con((? 1), (op 2));
|
|
// CHECK: dag undefSecond = (op 1, 2);
|
|
dag undefSecond = !con((op 1), (? 2));
|
|
// CHECK: dag undefBoth = (? 1, 2);
|
|
dag undefBoth = !con((? 1), (? 2));
|
|
|
|
#ifdef ERROR
|
|
// ERROR: Concatenated Dag operators do not match: '(op 1)' vs. '(otherop 2)'
|
|
dag mismatch = !con((op 1), (otherop 2));
|
|
#endif
|
|
}
|