search for: d25930

...make our representation fit the model, does that improve the > quality of the code? There's clearly been a long standing assumption that > GlobalValues are of pointer type. Breaking that assumption has in fact > found potential bugs (see e.g. my changes to ValueTracking.cpp in D25930, > as well as D25917 which was a requirement for the representational change), > and seems like it may help prevent bugs in the future, so I'd say that the > answer is most likely yes. > > I’d argue the other side of it. The quality of the code is higher if we > have...

...ly tested). > If we make our representation fit the model, does that improve the quality of the code? There's clearly been a long standing assumption that GlobalValues are of pointer type. Breaking that assumption has in fact found potential bugs (see e.g. my changes to ValueTracking.cpp in D25930, as well as D25917 which was a requirement for the representational change), and seems like it may help prevent bugs in the future, so I'd say that the answer is most likely yes. I’d argue the other side of it. The quality of the code is higher if we have invariants (like all globals are point...

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Rafael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > You get the code you want with > > > > @foo = external hidden global i8 > > > > or > > > > @foo = external protected global i8 > > Sorry, not quiet. What you get is > > leaq foo(%rip), %rax > > Since it is still assuming foo is a

> You get the code you want with > > @foo = external hidden global i8 > > or > > @foo = external protected global i8 Sorry, not quiet. What you get is leaq foo(%rip), %rax Since it is still assuming foo is a position in the file. So yes, we need a way to declare an absolute value. If we can declare it, we may as well use the same construct to define it. I guess the

> On Oct 24, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk <mailto:peter at pcc.me.uk>> wrote: > The specific change I have in mind is to allow !range metadata on GlobalObjects. This would > be similar to existing !range metadata, but it would apply to the