similar to: [LLVMdev] memcpy(), memmove(), and memset() with zero length

Hi all, when I call the llvm.memcpy/memmove/memset.* intrinsics, typically I have to pass in valid (non-dangling, non-NULL pointers) of the given alignment. However, to what extent to these rules apply when the count is 0? Concretely (for any variant of the three aforementioned intrinsics): Is it UB to call them on a dangling pointer when count is 0? On a pointer of less than the given

Hi all, This change has been reviewed, and appears to be ready to land (review available here if anyone still wants to chime in: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41675 ). The process that we’re going to use for landing this will take a few steps. To wit: Step 1) Remove align argument, and add align attribute to pointer args. Require that src & dest have the same alignment via verifier rule. Also

Hi Daniel, a quick question (and kind-of a follow-up to <https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-July/115665.html>): Do the pointers have to be aligned even if the size is 0? It would be nice to have this stated explicitly in the LangRef. Kind regards, Ralf On 26.03.2018 22:43, Daniel Neilson via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi all, >  A quick note just to let people know that as of

I can't think of a better way to do this, so I think it's ok. I also submitted a complementary patch on llvm-commits clarifying volatile semantics. -Andy On Jan 28, 2013, at 8:54 AM, Arnaud A. de Grandmaison <arnaud.allarddegrandmaison at parrot.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > In the language reference manual, the access behavior of the memcpy, > memmove and memset

Hi all, A quick note just to let people know that as of this past Friday my go at this work has been fully landed. It ended up being a back-burner item, so it took longer than I would have liked to get completed. None the less, the changes made were: 1) The IRBuilders in LLVM, Clang, and Polly were all updated to create only the new form of the memory intrinsics. 2) All LLVM passes to understand

Thanks Andy and Chandler, After specifying the volatile access behaviour, the second step was to autoupgrade the memmove/memcpy intrinsics, and implement (is|set)Volatile in terms of (is|set)(Src|Dest)Volatile, with no functional change. 0001-Specify-the-access-behaviour-of-the-memcpy-memmove-a.patch is the one you already reviewed, unaltered.

Same patches as before, but 0002-memcpy has been updated to put the (is|set)SrcVolatile methods to where they logically belong : MemTransferInst. This makes (is|set)Volatile methods look a bit ugly to keep compatibility with existing behaviour, but they will hopefully disappear when all users have moved to the new interface --- in the next series of patches. I plan to give a try to phabricator

Good day all, I’ve spent a few days resurrecting the circa-2015 work on removing the explicit alignment argument (4th arg) from the @llvm.memcpy/memmove/memset intrinsics in favour of using the alignment attribute on the pointer args of calls to the intrinsic. This work was first proposed back in August 2015 by Lang Hames: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-August/089384.html (item

Hi All, In the language reference manual, the access behavior of the memcpy, memmove and memset intrinsics is not well defined with respect to the volatile flag. The LRM even states that "it is unwise to depend on it". This forces optimization passes to be conservatively correct and prevent optimizations. A very simple example of this is : $ cat test.c #include <stdint.h>

> On Jan 18, 2018, at 7:45 AM, Daniel Neilson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > Hi all, > This change has been reviewed, and appears to be ready to land (review available here if anyone still wants to chime in: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41675 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D41675> ). The process that we’re going to use for landing this will take a few

Dale Johannesen wrote: > On Oct 6, 2007, at 9:14 AM, Jon Sargeant wrote: > >> If <NumElements> is zero, what is the behavior of malloc() and >> alloca()? >> Can I call free() using the pointer that malloc() returns? > > alloca is not standard. > The behavior of malloc is covered in 7.20.3p1: > > If the size of the space requested is zero, the

TLDR: a proposal to add GC-parseable lowering to element atomic memcpy/memmove instrinsics controlled by a new "requires-statepoint” call attribute. Currently llvm.{memcpy|memmove}.element.unordered.atomic calls are considered as GC leaf functions (like most other intrinsics). As a result GC cannot occur while copy operation is in progress. This might have negative effect on GC latencies

On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 07:06:31AM -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > - Direction (should the memory be traversed forward or backward) I don't think that this makes sense for memset and memcpy. It does matter for memmove. Joerg

Hi All, I have a question on ConstantExpressions and llvm intrinsic memcpy/memset/memmove. I am using llvm-2.8 release. In one of the C programs that I am compiling using clang frontend, the call to memcpy instrinsic looks like the following call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i64(i8* %tmp2, i8* bitcast (%struct.ta* @tret to i8*), i64 4, i32 4, i1 false), !dbg !19 The second argument to memcpy is

Thanks for the feedback. I think both of the suggestions are very reasonable. I’ll incorporate them. Given there were no objections for two weeks, I’m going to go ahead with posting individual patches for review. One small question inline: On Sep 28, 2020, at 10:56 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com<mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: In general, I am

Hi All, I'd like to float two changes to the llvm.memcpy / llvm.memmove intrinsics. (1) Add an i1 <mayPerfectlyAlias> argument to the llvm.memcpy intrinsic. When set to '1' (the auto-upgrade default), this argument would indicate that the source and destination arguments may perfectly alias (otherwise they must not alias at all - memcpy prohibits partial overlap). While the C

> I don't think that was the conclusion of the discussion? I mean the > result was that a NULL pointer should be explicitly valid if the length > argument is zero. That's a bit more restrictive. Yeah there's a design space here. I don't care about the result but am volunteering to document whatever people want. John

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 09:31:41AM -0600, John Regehr via llvm-dev wrote: > I propose documenting in the LangRef that memcpy and related intrinsics are > defined even when src and dst don't refer to valid storage as long as the > length argument is zero. Then we commit to implementing that behavior. Is > that OK with everyone? If so I can update the doc. I don't think that was

Hi, LLVM's memory intrinsics are quite useful for performing various optimizations with frequently used memory operations. Unfortunately this intrinsics are not applicable for languages with guaranteed atomicity for their memory accesses (like Java for example). In order to overcome this limitation I'm thinking about adding set of intrinsics which will execute as a series of unordered

> So, the pointer arguments of memcpy *shall* (a violation of a shall > clause is UB, per §4/2) have valid values, even though the function will > copy zero characters. This is true in C but the question was about LLVM intrinsics. Since the LangRef does not mention any such restriction, I would assume that memcpy(0,0,0) is not UB in LLVM. If it is UB then we must update the LangRef