similar to: [LLVMdev] TargetSpec

The simplest solution is probably to just break it out into its own library. -- Sean Silva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130213/9ab171c0/attachment.html>

Hi Kevin, Thanks for your interest and for your deep analysis. Unfortunately, your approach doesn't catch all bugs and is vulnerable to an attack. Consider the following case: ...................... | ----- obj --- | | end ^ ptr ^ ^ end-of-memory The scenario is as follows: - an object is allocated in the last page of the address space - obj is byte

I am investigating changing BoundsChecking to use address-based rather than size- & offset-based tests. To explain, here is a short code sample cribbed from one of the tests: %mem = tail call i8* @calloc(i64 1, i64 %elements) %memobj = bitcast i8* %mem to i64* %ptr = getelementptr inbounds i64* %memobj, i64 %index %4 = load i64* %ptr, align 8 Currently, the IR for bounds checking

Nuno, Inspired by this email thread, I spent a bit of time today looking through the implementation of BoundsChecking::instrument(..). Based on my reading of prior work, it should be possible to do these checks in two comparisons, or possibly even one if the right assumptions could be made. Could you provide a bit of background of the expected domains of Size and Offset? In particular,

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:43:35PM -0800, Dan Gohman wrote: > On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > This leads to a number of problems in LLVM: > > - we have a bunch of duplication > > - we have confusion about what a triple is (normalized or not) > > - no good way to tell if a triple is normalized > > - no good, centralized way to reason about

On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote: >> >> On the other hand, if "Byte Order" makes sense to include, should >> other parts of targetdata be included? Pointer size seems the next >> most desirable -- endianness and pointer size would be sufficient for >> many elf tools, for example. However, the other parts of >> targetdata could

Hi All, There is recently a discussion on the LLDB list about how to deal with targets, and our current mismash of llvm::Triple and the various subclasses of TargetSubtarget leave a lot to be desired. GNU target triples are really important as input devices to the compiler (users want to specify them) but they aren't detailed enough for internal clients. Anyway, in short, I think that we

On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > This leads to a number of problems in LLVM: > - we have a bunch of duplication > - we have confusion about what a triple is (normalized or not) > - no good way to tell if a triple is normalized > - no good, centralized way to reason about which triples are allowed and valid > - the MC assembler has to link in the entire X86

On 23/02/11 19:26, Chris Lattner wrote: [...] > This request is completely orthogonal to the proposal. If you generate target independent LLVM IR, you don't have to put a triple into the IR. This isn't going to change. Unfortunately clang doesn't appear to be aware of this. It's forcing me to specify a triple (or at least, I haven't discovered a way of generating

Maybe we can have two versions of the intrinsic function, "ordered" and "unordered", just like fcmp has [1]. Would that work ? [1] - http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#fcmp-instruction On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:14 AM, "Schoedel, Kevin P" <kevin.p.schoedel at intel.com> wrote: > At Monday, December 17, 2012 2:05 PM, Nadav Rotem [mailto:nrotem at apple.com]

On Feb 23, 2011, at 2:47 AM, David Given wrote: > On 02/23/11 02:46, Chris Lattner wrote: > [...] >> Remember that this isn't intended to be something users deal with, it's just an internal implementation detail of the compiler, debugger, nm implementation, etc. > > Can I put in a plea to have as much of LLVM as possible *not* require > knowledge of a single,

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > There is recently a discussion on the LLDB list about how to deal with targets, and our current mismash of llvm::Triple and the various subclasses of TargetSubtarget leave a lot to be desired.  GNU target triples are really important as input devices to the compiler (users want to specify them) but they

At Monday, December 17, 2012 2:05 PM, Nadav Rotem [mailto:nrotem at apple.com] wrote: >This part worries me. The new min/max intrinsics will only be useful if we could pattern match cmp/select into them. Yes, that's the obvious alternative. I don't think we have any strong opinion either way, and fcmp/select is certainly easier to implement. -- Kevin Schoedel, Software Developer,

On Wednesday, December 05, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > What does the community think? > > It seems inevitable. For the floating point version, please make it very clear > what the behavior of max(-0,+0) and related cases are. The following is our current proposal for llvm.fmax/fmin.*: [1] If exactly one argument is a NaN, the intrinsic returns the other argument.

Hi Kevin, Thanks for working on this. We usually try really hard to avoid adding new types such as x86mmx. I don’t know the memory-protection instruction set at all but I imagine that you are not expecting other LLVM optimizations to interact with them right ? (it looks that way from this example[1]). If you are not accessing the individual components then you can use i128, or even <2 x

Hi, On Monday, September 09, 2013 4:20 PM, Nadav Rotem [mailto:nrotem at apple.com] wrote: > Thanks for working on this. We usually try really hard to avoid adding new > types such as x86mmx. I don't know the memory-protection instruction set at > all but I imagine that you are not expecting other LLVM optimizations to > interact with them right ? (it looks that way from this

Hi Kevin, We're also interested in support for fat pointers in LLVM/clang and it would be nice to have some general infrastructure for them (we currently have a load of hacks). There are a lot of research architectures with fat pointers, and MPX is likely to be just the first of many to start hitting real silicon soon. There are a few properties that we'd ideally want to represent in

Hi Kevin, Can you explain what kind of abstraction/support do you plan to implement over the MP instructions ? I imagine that you plan to add a few intrinsics, right ? I imagine that you don’t need the register allocator to allocate the BND registers or anything fancy like that. In that case the registers can be an immediate in the intrinsic. Maybe you can start by presenting the kind of

Hi, > Would it be OK to add "ELF" to Triple::EnvironmentType? It seems like a plausible choice since MachO is there. On the other hand, I'm not sure whether it makes sense to make it mutually exclusive with the other members of EnvironmentType (GNU, GNUEABI, EABI). EABI and GNUEABI imply ELF. GNU in practice does not need to imply ELF, but is used in the ARM world as "the

On Dec 17, 2012, at 10:50 AM, "Schoedel, Kevin P" <kevin.p.schoedel at intel.com> wrote: > The intrinsics are not equivalent to an fcmp/select sequence. This part worries me. The new min/max intrinsics will only be useful if we could pattern match cmp/select into them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: