search for: augmenteduse

...doesn't necessarily have anything to do with User* pointer alignment per se (although I believe that could still cause trouble, though I would expect asserts to catch things in that case). Here's what I think is happening: Use::getUser() casts the last element of the Use array to an AugmentedUse, then pulls out the tagged pointer that AugmentedUse adds. However, in the case where the User is actually located at the end of the Use array, there's no tagged pointer there, just some "random" data corresponding to the first sizeof(User*) bits of a User instance. The code see...

On May 1, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: > Hi Nicolas, > > Looks like Preston and I have found the cause of the problem. The > issue is with PointerLikeTypeTraits<T*>::NumLowBitsAvailable. This > is set to 3, which basically assumes that unless the traits are > specialized for a particular pointer type, objects of that type are > allocated with

...hing to do with User*   > pointer alignment per se (although I believe that could still cause   > trouble, though I would expect asserts to catch things in that case). > > Here's what I think is happening: > > Use::getUser() casts the last element of the Use array to an   > AugmentedUse, then pulls out the tagged pointer that AugmentedUse adds. > > However, in the case where the User is actually located at the end of   > the Use array, there's no tagged pointer there, just some "random"   > data corresponding to the first sizeof(User*) bits of a User inst...

Hi! when compiling projects using llvm 2.9 and ms vc 10 I get these warnings: 1>e:\Jochen\Lib\lib\include\llvm/Use.h(218): warning C4624: 'llvm::AugmentedUse' : destructor could not be generated because a base class destructor is inaccessible 1>C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\include\stdint.h(72): warning C4005: 'INT8_MIN' : macro redefinition 1> e:\Jochen\Lib\lib\include\llvm/Support/DataTypes.h(116...

...ty, do you have any reference that guarantees that MSVC will always place a pointer at the start of a User? As I mentioned I have a patch pending that I'll commit soon that adds a bunch of comments and will document this assumption in the code. I was also wondering if we could get rid of AugmentedUse. Is there any reason we don't just cast the actual end of the list (i.e. the result of getImpliedUser) to a PointerIntPair (or a void* passed to it) directly? Unless there's some specific reason why AugmentedUse exists, it seems to me like it only makes the code more confusing. If y...