search for: any_point

...or me since we somehow detach our information about memory from that actual load instruction. I updated https://reviews.llvm.org/D37579 and https://reviews.llvm.org/D37648 with adding the aggregate pointer as second parameter as Michael asked. So now, the intrinsic look like this: void phantom_mem(any_pointer base, any_pointer aggregate, uint64_t maximum_offset) For PR21780, I don't need to use aggregate so it is set to null, but for other similar issues this aggregate parameter might be useful. Thanks, Dinar. On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:52 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel a...

...eling, but they still block optimization. Thanks again, Hal > I updated > https://reviews.llvm.org/D37579 and https://reviews.llvm.org/D37648 > with adding the aggregate pointer as second parameter as Michael > asked. So now, the intrinsic look like this: > > void phantom_mem(any_pointer base, any_pointer aggregate, uint64_t > maximum_offset) > > For PR21780, I don't need to use aggregate so it is set to null, but > for other similar issues this aggregate parameter might be useful. > Thanks, Dinar. > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at...

On 09/13/2017 04:46 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi Michael, >> I have a case where InstCombine removes a store and your approach would be >> valuable for me if the entire access to an aggregate could be restored. > Yes, no problem and we could add the aggregate pointer to this new > intrinsic and in my particular case I should ignore it, but I am > looking

Hi Michael, >I have a case where InstCombine removes a store and your approach would be >valuable for me if the entire access to an aggregate could be restored. Yes, no problem and we could add the aggregate pointer to this new intrinsic and in my particular case I should ignore it, but I am looking now at "speculation_marker" metadata and I am still not sure how to implement it