Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "d16875".
2017 Dec 21
4
Hoisting in the presence of volatile loads.
On 12/20/2017 03:49 PM, Alina Sbirlea via llvm-dev wrote:
> +Philip to get his input too.
> I've talked with George offline, and here's a summary:
>
> In D16875 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D16875>, the decision made was:
> "The LLVM spec is ambiguous about whether we can hoist a non-volatile
> load above a volatile load when the loads alias. It's probably best
> not to exploit this ambiguity at the moment by unconditionally
> a...
2017 Dec 20
4
Hoisting in the presence of volatile loads.
On 12/20/2017 1:37 PM, Sanjoy Das wrote:>
> Fwiw, I was under the impression that regular loads could *not* be
> reordered with volatile loads since we could have e.g.:
>
> int *normal = &global_variable;
> volatile int* ptr = 0;
> int k = *ptr; // segfaults, and the signal handler writes to *normal
> int value = *normal;
>
> and that we'd have
2017 Dec 20
3
Hoisting in the presence of volatile loads.
Hi Krzysztof,
Could I get some background info on reasoning about hoisting in the
presence of volatile loads?
I was looking at this testcase: test/Transforms/LICM/volatile-alias.ll
Context: MemorySSA treats volatile loads as defs. I'm looking to better
understand expected behavior in the presence of volatile accesses.
More context: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40375.
Thanks in advance,
Alina