similar to: [LLVMdev] GEP vs IntToPtr/PtrToInt

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Arushi Aggarwal <arushi987 at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Hi, >> Is it correct to convert, >>   %196 = load i32* %195, align 8                  ; <i32> [#uses=1] >>   %197 = zext i32 %196 to i64                     ; <i64> [#uses=1] >>   %198 = ptrtoint i8* %193 to i64                 ; <i64> [#uses=1]

Hi, > > Is it correct to convert, > > %196 = load i32* %195, align 8 ; <i32> [#uses=1] > %197 = zext i32 %196 to i64 ; <i64> [#uses=1] > %198 = ptrtoint i8* %193 to i64 ; <i64> [#uses=1] > %199 = add i64 %198, %197 ; <i64> [#uses=1] > %200 = inttoptr i64 %199 to i8*

On 4/4/2011 6:45 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Arushi Aggarwal<arushi987 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> Is it correct to convert, >>> %196 = load i32* %195, align 8 ;<i32> [#uses=1] >>> %197 = zext i32 %196 to i64 ;<i64> [#uses=1] >>> %198 =

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:10 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > On 4/4/2011 6:45 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Arushi Aggarwal<arushi987 at gmail.com> >>  wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> Is it correct to convert, >>>>   %196 = load i32* %195, align 8                

This code is generated for va_arg. %6 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.__va_list_tag* %5, i32 0, i32 3 ; <i8**> [#uses=1] %7 = load i8** %6, align 8 ; <i8*> [#uses=1] %8 = getelementptr inbounds [1 x %struct.__va_list_tag]* %ap, i64 0, i64 0 ; <%struct.__va_list_tag*> [#uses=1] %9 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.__va_list_tag* %8, i32 0, i32 0 ;

I have a question about when we should apply these pointer aliasing rules. Do the rules tell us when a load/store is safe? "Any memory access must be done through a pointer value associated with an address range of the memory access, otherwise the behavior is undefined." So this means the conversion discussed here is still safe in terms of memory safety, but its meaning after conversion

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > I have a question about when we should apply these pointer aliasing > rules. Do the rules tell us when a load/store is safe? > "Any memory access must be done through a pointer value associated > with an address range of the memory access, otherwise the behavior is > undefined." >

On 4/20/11 10:08 AM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > I have a question about when we should apply these pointer aliasing > rules. Do the rules tell us when a load/store is safe? > "Any memory access must be done through a pointer value associated > with an address range of the memory access, otherwise the behavior is > undefined." I don't think the pointer aliasing rules

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> I have a question about when we should apply these pointer aliasing >> rules. Do the rules tell us when a load/store is safe? >> "Any memory access must be done through a pointer value

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>> I have a question about when we should apply these pointer aliasing >>> rules. Do the rules tell

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> I

Consider the two functions bellow: define i8* @f(i8* %A) { %pti = ptrtoint i8* %A to i64 %add = add i64 %pti, 5 %itp = inttoptr i64 %add to i8* ret i8* %itp} define i8* @g(i8* %A) { %gep = getelementptr i8* %A, i64 5 ret i8* %gep} What, if anything, prevents us from canonicalizing @f to @g?I've heard that this might be in violation of http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#pointeraliasing

On 09/08/2014 04:22 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > An object can be allocated at virtual address 5 through extra-VM means > (eg. mmap), and then one can (creatively) interpret the return value > of @f as being associated with whatever %A was associated with *and* > 5. The return value of @g can only be associated with exactly the same > set that %A was associated with. Consequently,

Hi, For a call like this, %tmp6 = call i32 (...)* bitcast (i32 (i8*, i8, i8**)* @ssplit to i32 (...)*)(i8* %tmp599, i32 46, i8** %domainv3) nounwind ; <i32> does the 2nd argument get zero extended or sign extended? Thanks, Arushi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, 1. Does the alignment of the pointer returned by an AllocaInst depend on the instructions before it in the basic block? The 1st snippet below aligns 'a' correctly, while the 2nd one doesnt. (the method handle_args, only prints out the values of arguments, and returns argv unchanged). define i32 @main(i32 %argc, i8** %argv) nounwind { entry: %argc_addr = alloca i32

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Dillon Sharlet <dsharlet at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I am working on an application of LLVM where I would strongly prefer that > getelementptr not be lowered into pointer arithmetic by any passes other > than my own. I'm writing a ModulePass. > > I am observing a situation where I compile a C++ file with no optimization >

Hello, I am working on an application of LLVM where I would strongly prefer that getelementptr not be lowered into pointer arithmetic by any passes other than my own. I'm writing a ModulePass. I am observing a situation where I compile a C++ file with no optimization and I get code as I would expect that uses getelementptr. However, if I enable optimization with -O3, *some* of my

Hi, I believe shouldHaveNodeForValue() should return false for ConstantPointerNullValue. Fixed in r121707. Arushi On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Kevin Streit <kevin.streit at googlemail.com>wrote: > I'm using BUDataStructures... But I tried LocalDatastructures and it didn't > work either... > On Dec 13, 2010 6:52 PM, "Arushi Aggarwal" <arushi987 at

FWIW, attached is a similar patch that adds a -falways-use-llvm-vaarg flag to Clang. Applies against mainline. (As discussed, va_arg isn't really supported well so this probably doesn't work well on anything other than simple code, YMMV, etc) ~Will On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Arushi Aggarwal <arushi987 at gmail.com> wrote: > Have these changes made it to mainline? Is

On 06/20/2017 03:26 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > Hi, Adrien, Hello Hal! Thanks for your answer! > Thanks for reporting this. I recommend that you file a bug report at > https://bugs.llvm.org/ Will do! > Whenever I see reports of missed optimization opportunities in the face > of ptrtoint/inttoptr, my first question is: why are these instructions > present in the first place? At