search for: pointees

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > It would be nice if we could make the TypePrinter not print the > calling convention if it's the default one for the ABI, but > TypePrinter doesn't have a lot of context.. no Sema, no ASTContext :/ > Does this patch fix any failures for you? It doesn't fix that test case, unfortunately.

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > Mingw switched abis with the release of gcc 4.7 > (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html). The main change is that now > mingw (like msvc) given thiscall calling convention to methods by > default. > > I think the last bug blocking us to support the new abi has just been > fixed.

Related to this subject is the __attribute__(aligned(X)) that can be set on a type in C/C++. It is being used when generating the load / stores / memcpy / ... but is lost with respect to the type's attribute. In many a case this could help various analysis or transforms to provide more accurate results when such a type is used. The __builtin_assume_aligned could be an way to solve this.

On Aug 27, 2012, at 10:15 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Aug 27, 2012, at 12:58 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:41:47 -0700 >> Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: >>> On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:50 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012

"Doerfert, Johannes via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > We could use a custom tag on `llvm.assume`, as an extension of > https://reviews.llvm.org/D72475, but that is not yet implemented. I had thought about using llvm.assume but was wondering if there is a better way. Tagging the loads with metadata really seems about the same amount of effort. Both

Hi - help! I have read through previous threads on the subject of 'byval' e.g. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/llvm-dev/Exact$20meaning$20of$20byval/llvm-dev/cyRZyXcMCNI https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/llvm-dev/$20byval/llvm-dev/uk4uiK93jeM https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/llvm-dev/byval/llvm-dev/46Tv0lSRwBg and read through code

On 03/25/2014 10:08 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek wrote: > On 3/25/2014 8:53 AM, Frank Winter wrote: >> >> One can see that if the initial alignment of the pointee of %arg0 was 32 >> bytes and since the vectorizer operates on a loop with a fixed trip >> count of 4 and the size of double is 8 bytes, the vector loads and >> stores could be ideally aligned with 32 bytes

Hi all, Is there a way to express in the IR that a pointer's value is a multiple of, say, 32 bytes? I.e. the data the pointer points to has an alignment of 32 bytes. I am not meaning the natural alignment determined by the object's size. I am talking about a double* pointer and like to explicitly overestimate the alignment. I am trying to add this pointer as a function's

Hi all, An oddity that has existed for a long time in the IR is that PointerType derives from SequentialType. Per subject I propose to make PointerType derive from Type for a couple of reasons: - Values of type PointerType are unlike the other SequentialTypes (arrays and vectors) in that they do not hold values of the element type. By moving PointerType we can unify certain aspects of how the

Hi all, i am coding to analyze an IR with multi-level pointers, and i am eager to know whether there exists a way to find the pointee pointer directly, if only given an upper level pointer. For example, in the following demo, C code: int i = 10; int *p = &i; int **pp; *pp = &p; IR code: %i = alloca i32, align 4 %p = alloca i32*, align 8 %pp = alloca i32**, align 8 store

On Aug 27, 2012, at 12:58 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:41:47 -0700 > Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: >> On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:50 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:15:30 -0700 >>> Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>>>

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 03:17:43AM -0800, Chandler Carruth wrote: >> As Joerg pointed out in IRC, 'y' is an lvalue, but we do not use it to >> access the object it designates, we only use it to compute the address, and >> thus restrict should have no bearing on it. That

While checking for serialization/deserialization without using pointee types, I've come across a few test cases that crash at head, without my debugging assertions for accessing pointee types. One of them is test/Transforms/StripSymbols/2010-06-30-StripDebug.ll Its retainedTypes metadata points to a metadata array of a single null element. This crashes the dyn_cast (because it's not a

LLVM developers, I was wondering if the program would still be safe if I strip the byval attributes from the parameters in the entire bitcode. LLVM language reference manual states that "The attribute implies that a hidden copy of the pointee is made between the caller and the callee, so the callee is unable to modify the value in the callee. This attribute is only valid on LLVM pointer

>>> Please add a generous block comment to >>> llvm/include/llvm/Bitcode/LLVMBitCodes.h above the new enum >>> explaining >>> what the difference is though. :) >> > > Should have said: > >> Should I take the same approach to the encoding of pointer types in >> the types table? PointerTypes are a bit easier. The code to write them

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 03:17:43AM -0800, Chandler Carruth wrote: > As Joerg pointed out in IRC, 'y' is an lvalue, but we do not use it to > access the object it designates, we only use it to compute the address, and > thus restrict should have no bearing on it. That would in turn make Clang's > optimization incorrect and also seems likely to make 'noalias'

Thanks David. I ended up trying this over the weekend (see https://github.com/llvm-project/llvm-project/compare/ master...pcc:pointertype). It ended up being a net reduction in code size so seems like a useful cleanup even independent of the typeless pointer work, I'll see if I can send a patch to the list. FWIW I think this directly helps towards the migration because we would have a clearer

So, we've run into some test cases which are pretty alarming. When inlining code in various different paths we can end up with this IR: define void @f(float* %value, i8* %b) { entry: %0 = load float* %value, align 4 %1 = bitcast i8* %b to float* store float %0, float* %1, align 1 ret void } define void @g(float* %value, i8* %b) { entry: %0 = bitcast float* %value to i32* %1 =

Seems pretty plausible to me - my only question would be whether it's worth the churn to do this intermediate step before finishing off typeless pointers (granted, I've stalled out on that for nearly a year, admittedly - but good to have extra hands/incentives - there's still a fair bit of work to do though, so understandable if it might not be useful to block progress on other things

Hi Robert, > I tried adding to the XCoreCallingConv.td: > CCIfByVal<CCPassByVal<0,4>> // pushes pointer to the stack This looks sensible to me. After that it comes down to cooperation between XCoreISelLowering's LowerFormalArguments and LowerCall functions. LowerFormalArguments is at the beginning of a function and is responsible for taking arguments out of