Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: Add ClangIR Protobuf Deserializer #27

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

DanielELog
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@DanielELog DanielELog changed the title feat: adds ClangIR Protobuf Deserializer feat: Add ClangIR Protobuf Deserializer Mar 3, 2025
@DanielELog
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Build is failing right now, but this is to be expected: CIROps.td within ClangIR was tweaked to enable default builders for every operation. This project's ClangIR needs to be updated to the one used for generating deserialization files (or, alternatively, the method of operator construction itself must be changed).

@misonijnik
Copy link
Collaborator

Build is failing right now, but this is to be expected: CIROps.td within ClangIR was tweaked to enable default builders for every operation. This project's ClangIR needs to be updated to the one used for generating deserialization files (or, alternatively, the method of operator construction itself must be changed).

You can change the ClangIR version using on CI here.

@DanielELog DanielELog force-pushed the DanielELog/proto_deserializer branch from e023991 to b121615 Compare March 4, 2025 11:16
CIRRecordKind_Class = 0;
CIRRecordKind_Union = 1;
CIRRecordKind_Struct = 2;
RecordKind_Class = 0;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do you think the name change is necessary? It breaks the backward compatibility of the protocol.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As it's still work in progress, I assumed such changes would not create big issues. I introduced them to create uniform naming style for Enum values, so code generators can hold simpler logic. I can put the old names back, but it may complicate TableGen backends and its future maintenance.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants