Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA"
2013 Mar 11
0
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
> Based on discussions with John McCall
>
> We currently focus on field accesses of structs, more specifically, on fields that are scalars or structs.
>
> Fundamental rules from C11
> --------------------------
> An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue expression that has one
2013 Mar 11
2
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA
On Mar 11, 2013, at 1:17 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>> Based on discussions with John McCall
>>
>> We currently focus on field accesses of structs, more specifically, on fields that are scalars or structs.
>>
>> Fundamental rules from C11
>>
2013 Mar 11
4
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA
On Mar 11, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2013, at 1:17 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>>> Based on
2013 Mar 11
0
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 11, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 11, 2013, at 1:17 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On
2013 Mar 11
2
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA
On Mar 11, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
2013 Mar 11
0
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 11, 2013, at 1:17 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>> Based on discussions with John McCall
>>>
>>> We currently focus on field accesses of structs, more
2013 Mar 12
2
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA
On Mar 11, 2013, at 7:52 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 11, 2013, at 2:37 PM,
2013 Mar 12
2
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA
On 3/11/13 1:17 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>> Based on discussions with John McCall
>>
>> We currently focus on field accesses of structs, more specifically, on fields that are scalars or structs.
>>
>> Fundamental rules from C11
>> --------------------------
>> An object
2013 Mar 12
0
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 11, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 11, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On
2013 Mar 13
3
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA
On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2013, at 7:52 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 11, 2013, at 4:23 PM,
2013 Mar 12
0
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 11, 2013, at 7:52 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 11, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:45 PM,
2013 Mar 13
0
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 11, 2013, at 7:52 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:56 PM,
2013 Mar 13
0
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/11/13 1:17 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Based on discussions with John McCall
>>>
>>> We currently focus on field accesses of structs, more specifically, on
2013 Mar 12
3
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA
On Mar 12, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek wrote:
> What cases does this proposal solve that the current analyses don't? Do you have a motivating example?
Given
struct A {
int x;
int y;
};
struct B {
A a;
int z;
};
struct C {
B b1;
B b2;
};
struct D {
C c;
};
with struct-access-path aware TBAA, C::b1.a.x does not alias with D::c.b2.a.x.
2013 Mar 13
1
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA (should we use offset+size instead of path?)
On Mar 12, 2013, at 6:07 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Manman Ren <mren at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 11, 2013, at 7:52 PM,
2013 Mar 13
0
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA
On 3/12/2013 12:13 PM, Manman Ren wrote:
>
> Given
> struct A {
> int x;
> int y;
> };
> struct B {
> A a;
> int z;
> };
> struct C {
> B b1;
> B b2;
> };
> struct D {
> C c;
> };
>
> with struct-access-path aware TBAA, C::b1.a.x does not alias with
D::c.b2.a.x.
2013 Mar 11
2
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA
On Mar 11, 2013, at 12:14 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek wrote:
> On 3/11/2013 1:41 PM, Manman Ren wrote:
>>
>> | x |
>> extends
>> | z |
>> super-type
>> | y |
>
> What does this mean? "The type of z extends the type of x, and the type of z is a super-type of y"?
Extends x into a subobject z, and z is
2013 Mar 12
0
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA
What cases does this proposal solve that the current analyses don't? Do
you have a motivating example?
-Krzysztof
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
2013 Mar 27
1
[LLVMdev] PROPOSAL: struct-access-path aware TBAA (new version)
Hello,
After discussions with Daniel, Dan and others, here is an updated proposal for struct-access-path aware TBAA.
Given an example
struct A {
int x;
int y;
};
struct B {
A a;
int z;
};
struct C {
B b1;
B b2;
int *p;
};
struct D {
C c;
};
The purpose of struct-path-aware TBAA is to say
"C::b1.a" will alias with "B::a.x", "C::b1.a" will alias with
2013 Oct 08
2
[LLVMdev] dragonegg: switch from old TBAA format to the new struct-path aware TBAA format
Hi Duncan,
I am hoping to remove the support for the old TBAA format soon.
You should be able to switch to the new format by replacing
MDNode *AliasTag = MDHelper.createTBAANode(TreeName, getTBAARoot());
with
MDNode *AliasType = MDHelper.createTBAAScalarTypeNode(TreeName,
getTBAARoot());
MDNode *AliasTag = MDHelper.createTBAAStructTagNode(AliasType, AliasType, 0)
Also replacing