similar to: [LLVMdev] FW: Proposal: New IR instruction for casting between address spaces

On Sep 11, 2012, at 1:03 PM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > > From: Villmow, Micah > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 12:51 PM > To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Proposal: New IR instruction for casting between address spaces > > Problem: > Bit casting between pointers of different address spaces only works if all

> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Gohman [mailto:gohman at apple.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:28 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Proposal: New IR instruction for casting between > address spaces > > On Sep 11, 2012, at 1:03 PM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> > wrote: >

Hi, On Sep 11, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dan Gohman [mailto:gohman at apple.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:28 PM >> To: Villmow, Micah >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Proposal: New IR instruction for casting between >> address spaces >> >>

> -----Original Message----- > From: Mon P Wang [mailto:monping at apple.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:12 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: Dan Gohman; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Proposal: New IR instruction for casting between > address spaces > > Hi, > > On Sep 11, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > > > > >

On Sep 12, 2012, at 2:45 PM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mon P Wang [mailto:monping at apple.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:12 PM >> To: Villmow, Micah >> Cc: Dan Gohman; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Proposal: New IR instruction for

> -----Original Message----- > From: Mon Ping Wang [mailto:monping at apple.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:55 AM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Proposal: New IR instruction for casting between > address spaces > > > On Sep 12, 2012, at 2:45 PM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> >

On Sep 13, 2012, at 7:51 AM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mon Ping Wang [mailto:monping at apple.com] >> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:55 AM >> To: Villmow, Micah >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Proposal: New IR instruction for casting between

On Sep 8, 2012, at 12:21 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Mon Ping Wang wrote: >> >> On Sep 7, 2012, at 11:10 PM, Nick Lewycky<nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: >> >>> Mon Ping Wang wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I don't think we should make bit casts between pointers with different >>>> address

Mon Ping Wang wrote: > > On Sep 7, 2012, at 11:10 PM, Nick Lewycky<nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > >> Mon Ping Wang wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I don't think we should make bit casts between pointers with different >>> address spaces illegal. Address spaces are not required to be disjoint. >>> In the N1169 spec, it says >>> A

OK, I’ve hit one more existing regression test that I’m weary of: define void @test2_addrspacecast() { %A = alloca %T %B = alloca %T %a = addrspacecast %T* %A to i8 addrspace(1)* %b = addrspacecast %T* %B to i8 addrspace(1)* call void @llvm.memcpy.p1i8.p0i8.i64(i8 addrspace(1)* %a, i8* bitcast (%T* @G to i8*), i64 124, i32 4, i1 false) call void

Ping! > -----Original Message----- > From: Villmow, Micah > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:12 PM > To: 'Chris Lattner'; 'Mon Ping Wang' > Cc: 'llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu'; 'llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu' > Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] Proposal: New IR instruction for casting between > address spaces > > Resending since I got an error. >

> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Lattner [mailto:clattner at apple.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 11:53 PM > To: Mon Ping Wang > Cc: Villmow, Micah; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Mailing List > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Proposal: New IR instruction for casting between > address spaces > > > On Sep 13, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Mon Ping Wang <monping at

Hi Mehdi, Thanks for the reply - I’ve finally got round to trying to fix this based on your suggestion. I’ve got something that mostly works, but I just wanted to double-check something about the regression tests before I post a patch. > The memcpy is supposed to be equivalent to a sequence of load and store. Here we are just failing to keep the property that the load is performed through

On 08/08/2013 02:52 PM, Micah Villmow wrote: > This is something I proposed last year, so you might want to read up on that discussion first. > > You can find it here: > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-September/053277.html Uhm... I read the discussion, probably I've not understood the problem well: the conclusion (it has been committed?) is that to handle address

If I don't bring in TargetData, then there is no way for me to verify the address space size in the verifier or in the auto-upgrade mechanisms. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:32 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: Chris Lattner; Mon Ping Wang; llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; > llvmdev at

On Sep 13, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Mon Ping Wang <monping at apple.com> wrote: >>> The pointer size is target dependent so it seems strange to choose an arbitrary size to convert to and from. Are you making a practical argument that 64b is sufficient on all machines so all targets can use that? In other words, pointers > 64 doesn't make any sense in terms of the address space? (A

We can't add a circular dependency between Target and VMCore. -Eli On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > Ping! > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Villmow, Micah >> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:12 PM >> To: 'Chris Lattner'; 'Mon Ping Wang' >> Cc: 'llvm-commits at

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > If I don't bring in TargetData, then there is no way for me to verify the address space size in the verifier or in the auto-upgrade mechanisms. And that's why I didn't like this approach in the first place. -Eli >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Eli Friedman

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:34:52 -0700 Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Villmow, Micah > <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > > If I don't bring in TargetData, then there is no way for me to > > verify the address space size in the verifier or in the > > auto-upgrade mechanisms. > > And that's why I

Hi, I’ve recently encountered an issue where the `instcombine` pass replaces an `llvm.memcpy` between two distinct address spaces with an `addrspacecast` instruction. As an example, see the trivial OpenCL kernel attached. I’m compiling like this: clang -cc1 -triple spir64-unknown-unknown -x cl -O0 -emit-llvm array_init.cl -o before.ll This yields an `llvm.memcpy` to copy the array