I have a question about when we should apply these pointer aliasing rules. Do the rules tell us when a load/store is safe? "Any memory access must be done through a pointer value associated with an address range of the memory access, otherwise the behavior is undefined." So this means the conversion discussed here is still safe in terms of memory safety, but its meaning after conversion could be weird. Am I correct? Then it comes to my another question. The base-on relation has this rule: "A pointer value formed by an inttoptr is based on all pointer values that contribute (directly or indirectly) to the computation of the pointer's value." Suppose an int value 'i' is computed by a lot of int variables that are converted from ptr (p1,p2...pn) by ptrtoint, then if we inttoptr i to a point p, how should I decide which pointer value the 'p' forms? If those p_j are ptrtoint to a i_j, and the computation for i is i i_0 + i_1 + ... i_n, does it mean we can take either p_j as a base pointer, and other int variables its offset, say we take p_2 as the base pointer, and the p from i points to p_2 + (i_0 + i_1 + i_3 + .. i_n) ? So in the transformation example, the result is different when we take %196 or %193 as a base pointer. For alias-analysis, we may say the p can point to a memory any of the p_j points to. But if we consider memory safety, should we say p is safe to access if p is not out-of-bound no matter which p_j is taken as a base pointer? Could anyone explain this rule more precisely? For example, how can we find " all pointer values that contribute (directly or indirectly)" ? This would be helpful to understand http://llvm.org/docs/GetElementPtr.html#ptrdiff http://llvm.org/docs/GetElementPtr.html#null which suggest that we can do some 'wild' pointer arithmetic by inttoptr and ptrtoint. For example, given a pointer p, can we safely do? i = ptrtoint p; j = i + null; q = inttoptr j; v = load q; Thanks a lot. On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:10 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > > On 4/4/2011 6:45 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Arushi Aggarwal<arushi987 at gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> Is it correct to convert, > >>>> %196 = load i32* %195, align 8 ;<i32> [#uses=1] > >>>> %197 = zext i32 %196 to i64 ;<i64> [#uses=1] > >>>> %198 = ptrtoint i8* %193 to i64 ;<i64> [#uses=1] > >>>> %199 = add i64 %198, %197 ;<i64> [#uses=1] > >>>> %200 = inttoptr i64 %199 to i8* ;<i8*> [#uses=1] > >>>> into > >>>> %200 = getelementptr %193, %196 > >>>> Reducing the unnecessary casts of converting to integers and then back? > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Arushi > >>>> > >> See http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#pointeraliasing ; it's not > >> correct in general. It is correct if %196 isn't dependent on the > >> address of any memory object, though. > > > > Can you clarify why the transform isn't correct? Is it because in the > > original code, %200 is based on both the originally cast pointer (%193) and > > the indexed offset from it (%197) while the transformed code is only based > > on %193? > > Yes, exactly. > > -Eli > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev-- Jianzhou
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote:> I have a question about when we should apply these pointer aliasing > rules. Do the rules tell us when a load/store is safe? > "Any memory access must be done through a pointer value associated > with an address range of the memory access, otherwise the behavior is > undefined." > > So this means the conversion discussed here is still safe in terms of > memory safety, but its meaning after conversion could be weird. Am I > correct?Per http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#pointeraliasing, it's undefined behavior, so it isn't safe in any sense. In practice, I can't think of a common transformation that would cause a crash, but it's best not to depend on that.> Then it comes to my another question. The base-on relation has this rule: > "A pointer value formed by an inttoptr is based on all pointer values > that contribute (directly or indirectly) to the computation of the > pointer's value." > > Suppose an int value 'i' is computed by a lot of int variables that > are converted from ptr (p1,p2...pn) by ptrtoint, then if we inttoptr i > to a point p, how should I decide which pointer value the 'p' forms? > > If those p_j are ptrtoint to a i_j, and the computation for i is i > i_0 + i_1 + ... i_n, does it mean > we can take either p_j as a base pointer, and other int variables > its offset, say we take p_2 as the base pointer, and the p from i > points to > p_2 + (i_0 + i_1 + i_3 + .. i_n) > ? > > So in the transformation example, the result is different when we take > %196 or %193 as a base pointer. > > For alias-analysis, we may say the p can point to a memory any of the > p_j points to. But if we consider memory safety, should we say p is > safe to access if p is not out-of-bound no matter which p_j is taken > as a base pointer?See above.> Could anyone explain this rule more precisely? For > example, how can we find " > all pointer values that contribute (directly or indirectly)" ?There isn't any straightforward way to calculate that set. Another way of stating the rule is that if changing the numerical value of the address of some object might change the calculated value of the operand of an inttoptr, it's one of the "pointer values that contribute". It's intentionally defined a bit loosely because there's a lot of different ways for that to be the case. You can extract information about a pointer by a inttoptr, a load of part or all of the address from memory, pointer comparisons, and possibly some other ways I'm not thinking of.> This would be helpful to understand > http://llvm.org/docs/GetElementPtr.html#ptrdiff > http://llvm.org/docs/GetElementPtr.html#null > which suggest that we can do some 'wild' pointer arithmetic by > inttoptr and ptrtoint. > > For example, given a pointer p, can we safely do? > i = ptrtoint p; > j = i + null; > q = inttoptr j; > v = load q; > > Thanks a lot.inttoptr(ptrtoint(x)) is just x; inttoptr(ptrtoint(x+10)) can be safely translated to gep i8* x, 10. Translating inttoptr(ptrtoint(x+y)) to gep i8* x, y is not safe in general. -Eli> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:10 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: >> > On 4/4/2011 6:45 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Arushi Aggarwal<arushi987 at gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Hi, >> >>>> Is it correct to convert, >> >>>> %196 = load i32* %195, align 8 ;<i32> [#uses=1] >> >>>> %197 = zext i32 %196 to i64 ;<i64> [#uses=1] >> >>>> %198 = ptrtoint i8* %193 to i64 ;<i64> [#uses=1] >> >>>> %199 = add i64 %198, %197 ;<i64> [#uses=1] >> >>>> %200 = inttoptr i64 %199 to i8* ;<i8*> [#uses=1] >> >>>> into >> >>>> %200 = getelementptr %193, %196 >> >>>> Reducing the unnecessary casts of converting to integers and then back? >> >>>> Thanks, >> >>>> Arushi >> >>>> >> >> See http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#pointeraliasing ; it's not >> >> correct in general. It is correct if %196 isn't dependent on the >> >> address of any memory object, though. >> > >> > Can you clarify why the transform isn't correct? Is it because in the >> > original code, %200 is based on both the originally cast pointer (%193) and >> > the indexed offset from it (%197) while the transformed code is only based >> > on %193? >> >> Yes, exactly. >> >> -Eli >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > > > -- > Jianzhou >
On 4/20/11 10:08 AM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote:> I have a question about when we should apply these pointer aliasing > rules. Do the rules tell us when a load/store is safe? > "Any memory access must be done through a pointer value associated > with an address range of the memory access, otherwise the behavior is > undefined."I don't think the pointer aliasing rules indicate when a memory access is safe. Rather, they set down rules for what the compiler can consider to be defined and undefined behavior. It lays down the law for what optimizations are considered correct and which are not.> So this means the conversion discussed here is still safe in terms of > memory safety, but its meaning after conversion could be weird. Am I > correct?I am not sure what you mean. However, if you're asking whether casting a pointer to an integer and then casting the integer back to a pointer is correct, I believe the answer is yes. We certainly treat it that way in SAFECode although in the current implementation, it can weaken the safety guarantees. Our points-to analysis, DSA, doesn't track pointers through integers, and so SAFECode uses more lenient checks on pointer values coming from inttoptr casts; DSA can't always guarantee that it knows everything about the memory objects feeding into it. That is, consequently, one of the reasons why we'd like to do Arushi's transformation. It will make DSA less conservative and SAFECode more stringent.> Then it comes to my another question. The base-on relation has this rule: > "A pointer value formed by an inttoptr is based on all pointer values > that contribute (directly or indirectly) to the computation of the > pointer's value." > > Suppose an int value 'i' is computed by a lot of int variables that > are converted from ptr (p1,p2...pn) by ptrtoint, then if we inttoptr i > to a point p, how should I decide which pointer value the 'p' forms? > > If those p_j are ptrtoint to a i_j, and the computation for i is i > i_0 + i_1 + ... i_n, does it mean > we can take either p_j as a base pointer, and other int variables > its offset, say we take p_2 as the base pointer, and the p from i > points to > p_2 + (i_0 + i_1 + i_3 + .. i_n) > ?So, in your example, if you do: i1 = ptrtoint p1; i2 = ptrtoint p2; ... in = ptrtoint pn; i = i1 + i2 ... + in; p = inttoptr i; ..., then p can point to any memory object p1, p2, ... pn. The reasoning is that the integer add instruction obscures which integer is the base pointer and which is the index, so the aliasing rules conservatively assume that either operand is the base pointer.> So in the transformation example, the result is different when we take > %196 or %193 as a base pointer.Yes, which is why the transform that Arushi suggested is not legal unless you can prove that %196 can't be a pointer to a memory object.> For alias-analysis, we may say the p can point to a memory any of the > p_j points to. But if we consider memory safety, should we say p is > safe to access if p is not out-of-bound no matter which p_j is taken > as a base pointer?That is how I would interpret memory safety: p is safe if it is within the bounds of any of the p_j memory objects.> Could anyone explain this rule more precisely? For > example, how can we find " > all pointer values that contribute (directly or indirectly)" ?I think this can be conservatively done using simple data-flow analysis. The only tricky part is when a pointer travels through memory (i.e., it is stored into memory by a store instruction and loaded later by a load instruction). An enhanced version of DSA which tracks pointers through integers could handle this.> This would be helpful to understand > http://llvm.org/docs/GetElementPtr.html#ptrdiff > http://llvm.org/docs/GetElementPtr.html#null > which suggest that we can do some 'wild' pointer arithmetic by > inttoptr and ptrtoint. > > For example, given a pointer p, can we safely do? > i = ptrtoint p; > j = i + null; > q = inttoptr j; > v = load q; >That's a weird one (aside: you need to cast NULL to int first before using it in the add). Since NULL doesn't point to a valid memory range, it may be that you can technically consider q to just point to p. However, I'm not sure about that; maybe q is technically aliased with null and can point to some offset of NULL. However, in practice, even if the aliasing rules say that q can point to p or some offset of NULL, I would say that q points to just p since you know (for most implementations) that NULL is equivalent to zero. -- John T.> Thanks a lot. > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Eli Friedman<eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:10 AM, John Criswell<criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: >>> On 4/4/2011 6:45 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >>>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Arushi Aggarwal<arushi987 at gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> Is it correct to convert, >>>>>> %196 = load i32* %195, align 8 ;<i32> [#uses=1] >>>>>> %197 = zext i32 %196 to i64 ;<i64> [#uses=1] >>>>>> %198 = ptrtoint i8* %193 to i64 ;<i64> [#uses=1] >>>>>> %199 = add i64 %198, %197 ;<i64> [#uses=1] >>>>>> %200 = inttoptr i64 %199 to i8* ;<i8*> [#uses=1] >>>>>> into >>>>>> %200 = getelementptr %193, %196 >>>>>> Reducing the unnecessary casts of converting to integers and then back? >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Arushi >>>>>> >>>> See http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#pointeraliasing ; it's not >>>> correct in general. It is correct if %196 isn't dependent on the >>>> address of any memory object, though. >>> Can you clarify why the transform isn't correct? Is it because in the >>> original code, %200 is based on both the originally cast pointer (%193) and >>> the indexed offset from it (%197) while the transformed code is only based >>> on %193? >> Yes, exactly. >> >> -Eli >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > > -- > Jianzhou
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> I have a question about when we should apply these pointer aliasing >> rules. Do the rules tell us when a load/store is safe? >> "Any memory access must be done through a pointer value associated >> with an address range of the memory access, otherwise the behavior is >> undefined." >> >> So this means the conversion discussed here is still safe in terms of >> memory safety, but its meaning after conversion could be weird. Am I >> correct? > > Per http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#pointeraliasing, it's undefined > behavior, so it isn't safe in any sense. In practice, I can't think > of a common transformation that would cause a crash, but it's best not > to depend on that.My confusion could be what is considered to be undefined from the rules. It says a memory access is defined if "Any memory access must be done through a pointer value associated with an address range of the memory access". Does this implicitly mean that the value of the pointer must be within the address range of the memory access it is associated with? It seems to be true to me from the rules about global variables, alloca and even external pointers. For example %p = alloca i32; %q = getelementptr %p, i32 42; store i32 0, i32* %q; Is this a fine memory access (although I don't think it is)? Here, %q is based on %p, and %p is associated with the address range from alloca i32. But the range of the result from alloca is definitely smaller than 42. Since the LLVM IR does not state that load/store-ing out-of-bound address is undefined http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#i_load http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#i_store I looked into the alias-rule to find answers. Now, come back to the inttoptr and ptrtoint questions. When we consider a memory access via pointers from int is defined, do we mean 1) the value of the pointer happens to equal to an address within a range of an allocated object, or 2) the value of the pointer happens to be based on some allocated objects per these rules, but it is fine if it is out of their ranges (I don' think this is true, but the rules do not explicitly tell me if this is legal). Here, the intuitive meaning of based-on is like you explained in the bellow. But I still have some questions about the 'based-on' things. It seems to state an aliasing relation between pointers. Then in the case if a result inttoptr is based on some objects, why can we consider this to be a good memory access? Because it is very likely a pointer points some other allocated objects that we don't want them to be changed. So this comes to my question --- what property does a defined memory-access give use?> >> Then it comes to my another question. The base-on relation has this rule: >> "A pointer value formed by an inttoptr is based on all pointer values >> that contribute (directly or indirectly) to the computation of the >> pointer's value." >> >> Suppose an int value 'i' is computed by a lot of int variables that >> are converted from ptr (p1,p2...pn) by ptrtoint, then if we inttoptr i >> to a point p, how should I decide which pointer value the 'p' forms? >> >> If those p_j are ptrtoint to a i_j, and the computation for i is i >> i_0 + i_1 + ... i_n, does it mean >> we can take either p_j as a base pointer, and other int variables >> its offset, say we take p_2 as the base pointer, and the p from i >> points to >> p_2 + (i_0 + i_1 + i_3 + .. i_n) >> ? >> >> So in the transformation example, the result is different when we take >> %196 or %193 as a base pointer. >> >> For alias-analysis, we may say the p can point to a memory any of the >> p_j points to. But if we consider memory safety, should we say p is >> safe to access if p is not out-of-bound no matter which p_j is taken >> as a base pointer? > > See above. > >> Could anyone explain this rule more precisely? For >> example, how can we find " >> all pointer values that contribute (directly or indirectly)" ? > > There isn't any straightforward way to calculate that set. Another > way of stating the rule is that if changing the numerical value of the > address of some object might change the calculated value of the > operand of an inttoptr, it's one of the "pointer values that > contribute". It's intentionally defined a bit loosely because there's > a lot of different ways for that to be the case. You can extract > information about a pointer by a inttoptr, a load of part or all of > the address from memory, pointer comparisons, and possibly some other > ways I'm not thinking of. > >> This would be helpful to understand >> http://llvm.org/docs/GetElementPtr.html#ptrdiff >> http://llvm.org/docs/GetElementPtr.html#null >> which suggest that we can do some 'wild' pointer arithmetic by >> inttoptr and ptrtoint. >> >> For example, given a pointer p, can we safely do? >> i = ptrtoint p; >> j = i + null; >> q = inttoptr j; >> v = load q; >> >> Thanks a lot. > > inttoptr(ptrtoint(x)) is just x; inttoptr(ptrtoint(x+10)) can be > safely translated to gep i8* x, 10. Translating > inttoptr(ptrtoint(x+y)) to gep i8* x, y is not safe in general.While in http://llvm.org/docs/GetElementPtr.html#ptrdiff, the difference between two pointers computed from GEP has to be a variable, but not a constant, how could that work? Also, given p1 and p2 from GEP, if we do i1 = ptrtoint p1; i2 = ptrtoint p2; i3 = i2 - i1; i3' = f (i3); // suppose f is an identical function that returns i3 directly. i4 = i3' + i1; p = inttoptr i4; .. = load p; // is this load defined? http://llvm.org/docs/GetElementPtr.html#ptrdiff seems to say, we can access out-of-bound memory via GEP, but it is safe to do that from inttoptr or ptrtoint as long as the result points an allocated object. Is this the right way to understand it ?> > -Eli > >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:10 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: >>> > On 4/4/2011 6:45 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Arushi Aggarwal<arushi987 at gmail.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi, >>> >>>> Is it correct to convert, >>> >>>> %196 = load i32* %195, align 8 ;<i32> [#uses=1] >>> >>>> %197 = zext i32 %196 to i64 ;<i64> [#uses=1] >>> >>>> %198 = ptrtoint i8* %193 to i64 ;<i64> [#uses=1] >>> >>>> %199 = add i64 %198, %197 ;<i64> [#uses=1] >>> >>>> %200 = inttoptr i64 %199 to i8* ;<i8*> [#uses=1] >>> >>>> into >>> >>>> %200 = getelementptr %193, %196 >>> >>>> Reducing the unnecessary casts of converting to integers and then back? >>> >>>> Thanks, >>> >>>> Arushi >>> >>>> >>> >> See http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#pointeraliasing ; it's not >>> >> correct in general. It is correct if %196 isn't dependent on the >>> >> address of any memory object, though. >>> > >>> > Can you clarify why the transform isn't correct? Is it because in the >>> > original code, %200 is based on both the originally cast pointer (%193) and >>> > the indexed offset from it (%197) while the transformed code is only based >>> > on %193? >>> >>> Yes, exactly. >>> >>> -Eli >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> >> >> -- >> Jianzhou >> >-- Jianzhou
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:59 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote:> On 4/20/11 10:08 AM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote: >> >> I have a question about when we should apply these pointer aliasing >> rules. Do the rules tell us when a load/store is safe? >> "Any memory access must be done through a pointer value associated >> with an address range of the memory access, otherwise the behavior is >> undefined." > > I don't think the pointer aliasing rules indicate when a memory access is > safe. Rather, they set down rules for what the compiler can consider to be > defined and undefined behavior. It lays down the law for what optimizations > are considered correct and which are not.I see. The rules are the 'abstract' semantics used to check aliasing. I looked into the section because LLVM IR does not say out-of-bound load/store is undefined. Is it because if or not such access is defined depends on the semantics of the high-level language from which the IR is compiled?> >> So this means the conversion discussed here is still safe in terms of >> memory safety, but its meaning after conversion could be weird. Am I >> correct? > > I am not sure what you mean. However, if you're asking whether casting a > pointer to an integer and then casting the integer back to a pointer is > correct, I believe the answer is yes. We certainly treat it that way in > SAFECode although in the current implementation, it can weaken the safety > guarantees. Our points-to analysis, DSA, doesn't track pointers through > integers, and so SAFECode uses more lenient checks on pointer values coming > from inttoptr casts; DSA can't always guarantee that it knows everything > about the memory objects feeding into it.Yes. That is what I meant.> > That is, consequently, one of the reasons why we'd like to do Arushi's > transformation. It will make DSA less conservative and SAFECode more > stringent. > >> Then it comes to my another question. The base-on relation has this rule: >> "A pointer value formed by an inttoptr is based on all pointer values >> that contribute (directly or indirectly) to the computation of the >> pointer's value." >> >> Suppose an int value 'i' is computed by a lot of int variables that >> are converted from ptr (p1,p2...pn) by ptrtoint, then if we inttoptr i >> to a point p, how should I decide which pointer value the 'p' forms? >> >> If those p_j are ptrtoint to a i_j, and the computation for i is i >> i_0 + i_1 + ... i_n, does it mean >> we can take either p_j as a base pointer, and other int variables >> its offset, say we take p_2 as the base pointer, and the p from i >> points to >> p_2 + (i_0 + i_1 + i_3 + .. i_n) >> ? > > So, in your example, if you do: > > i1 = ptrtoint p1; > i2 = ptrtoint p2; > ... > in = ptrtoint pn; > > i = i1 + i2 ... + in; > p = inttoptr i; > > ..., then p can point to any memory object p1, p2, ... pn. The reasoning is > that the integer add instruction obscures which integer is the base pointer > and which is the index, so the aliasing rules conservatively assume that > either operand is the base pointer. > >> So in the transformation example, the result is different when we take >> %196 or %193 as a base pointer. > > Yes, which is why the transform that Arushi suggested is not legal unless > you can prove that %196 can't be a pointer to a memory object. > >> For alias-analysis, we may say the p can point to a memory any of the >> p_j points to. But if we consider memory safety, should we say p is >> safe to access if p is not out-of-bound no matter which p_j is taken >> as a base pointer? > > That is how I would interpret memory safety: p is safe if it is within the > bounds of any of the p_j memory objects. > >> Could anyone explain this rule more precisely? For >> example, how can we find " >> all pointer values that contribute (directly or indirectly)" ? > > I think this can be conservatively done using simple data-flow analysis. > The only tricky part is when a pointer travels through memory (i.e., it is > stored into memory by a store instruction and loaded later by a load > instruction). An enhanced version of DSA which tracks pointers through > integers could handle this. > >> This would be helpful to understand >> http://llvm.org/docs/GetElementPtr.html#ptrdiff >> http://llvm.org/docs/GetElementPtr.html#null >> which suggest that we can do some 'wild' pointer arithmetic by >> inttoptr and ptrtoint. >> >> For example, given a pointer p, can we safely do? >> i = ptrtoint p; >> j = i + null; >> q = inttoptr j; >> v = load q; >> > > That's a weird one (aside: you need to cast NULL to int first before using > it in the add). Since NULL doesn't point to a valid memory range, it may be > that you can technically consider q to just point to p. However, I'm not > sure about that; maybe q is technically aliased with null and can point to > some offset of NULL. > > However, in practice, even if the aliasing rules say that q can point to p > or some offset of NULL, I would say that q points to just p since you know > (for most implementations) that NULL is equivalent to zero. > > -- John T. > >> Thanks a lot. >> >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Eli Friedman<eli.friedman at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:10 AM, John Criswell<criswell at illinois.edu> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 4/4/2011 6:45 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Arushi Aggarwal<arushi987 at gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> Is it correct to convert, >>>>>>> %196 = load i32* %195, align 8 ;<i32> [#uses=1] >>>>>>> %197 = zext i32 %196 to i64 ;<i64> [#uses=1] >>>>>>> %198 = ptrtoint i8* %193 to i64 ;<i64> [#uses=1] >>>>>>> %199 = add i64 %198, %197 ;<i64> [#uses=1] >>>>>>> %200 = inttoptr i64 %199 to i8* ;<i8*> [#uses=1] >>>>>>> into >>>>>>> %200 = getelementptr %193, %196 >>>>>>> Reducing the unnecessary casts of converting to integers and then >>>>>>> back? >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Arushi >>>>>>> >>>>> See http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#pointeraliasing ; it's not >>>>> correct in general. It is correct if %196 isn't dependent on the >>>>> address of any memory object, though. >>>> >>>> Can you clarify why the transform isn't correct? Is it because in the >>>> original code, %200 is based on both the originally cast pointer (%193) >>>> and >>>> the indexed offset from it (%197) while the transformed code is only >>>> based >>>> on %193? >>> >>> Yes, exactly. >>> >>> -Eli >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> >> -- >> Jianzhou > >-- Jianzhou