search for: tagb

...To distinct unions from other types we can have a special group for them. Alternatively, we can use type identification nodes, see below. For aggregate accesses: The comment in TypeBasedAliasAnalysis.cpp suggests: // TODO: We need to check if AccessType of TagA encloses AccessType of // TagB to support aggregate AccessType. If yes, return true. Consider these two accesses: struct A { int i; }; struct B { struct A a; } *b; struct X { int i; } *x; b->a x->i Following the rule in the comment, the accesses are allowed to overlap, which is wrong. Instea...

...ou please check it out and let me know if I'm missing something? >> > >> >> For aggregate accesses: >> >> The comment in TypeBasedAliasAnalysis.cpp suggests: >> >> // TODO: We need to check if AccessType of TagA encloses AccessType of >> // TagB to support aggregate AccessType. If yes, return true. >> >> Consider these two accesses: >> >> struct A { int i; }; >> struct B { struct A a; } *b; >> >> struct X { int i; } *x; >> >> b->a >> x->i >> >&gt...

> > > > For two given access sequences we can determine if the accessed > objects are allowed to overlap by the rules of the input > language. Sadly, this is where this becomes "unlikely to want to use to replace TBAA", at least for me. It may still be a thing we want anyway. This scheme is really an encoding of C/C++ TBAA info so it can be read by LLVM and requires