Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "address_size_in_bit".
Did you mean:
address_size_in_bits
2010 Jun 28
0
[LLVMdev] Strange pointer aliasing behaviour
...rding to llvm
rules addition can overflow and i can be < 0.
Also, if original example used unsigned type (e.g. size_t, which is
very common), I don't think ir can express the fact that i is
guaranted to be >= 0.
Another line of reasoning is that if
sizeof(i)*8+log2(sizeof(_data[0])) > address_size_in_bits, overflowing
i requires going out of bounds when storing to _data[i] (because
address space can't contain objects large enough). Can this be used
for alias analysis?
Eugene
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 27, 2010, at 2:26 PM, E...
2010 Jun 28
2
[LLVMdev] Strange pointer aliasing behaviour
On Jun 27, 2010, at 2:26 PM, Eugene Toder wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Are you referring to my reasoning for why _length and _data[i] do not
> alias?
No, I was referring to the discussion of C99 6.7.2.1, 6.5.6,
6.2.6, and so on.
> I don't think this needs TBAA or any "strict" aliasing rules.
> All that sufficient is 1) assumption about struct layout:
>