search for: allocad

...6, align 4 ; <i32> [#uses=1] %tmp1542_i = getelementptr [256 x i8]* @Te, i32 0, i32 %tmp1505_i ... llvm opt can't remove the redundant store-load pair to just use the value %tmp1476 as the load is volatile. But I think for the above situation, it's safe to remove store-load, as the allocad %r1419_0_0_0_i376 just has two users (the one load and one store), correct? Can I add some code to instcombine or dce for this? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080522/abd6d189/attachment.htm...

...tptr [256 x i8]* @Te, i32 0, i32 %tmp1505_i > > ... > > > > > > llvm opt can't remove the redundant store-load pair to just use the value > %tmp1476 as the load is volatile. > > But I think for the above situation, it's safe to remove store-load, as > the allocad %r1419_0_0_0_i376 just has two users (the one load and one > store), correct? > > > I don't think you can do that. Loads are often marked volatile because > the memory location is accessed in some "undefined" way. For example, > if the pointer to the alloca'ed...

On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, lee white baugh wrote: > hi chris, thanks for answering that question. now i've another! for the Bring them on! :) > svr task, i'll need to know when a struct is being mallocd or allocad. > but last night when getting started on the task, i got far enough to see > that while in the code i was allocing a struct, in the bytecode it was > allocing a ubyte or something -- the information that it was a struct, and > hence the handle i had in the llvm framework for finding ou...