similar to: [LLVMdev] Problem with intrinsics

Hi all, I have managed to compile libpng using wllvm and obtain the IR of pngpixel ( small tool which is part of libpng ). libpng has a function called png_check_IHDR: void /* PRIVATE */ png_check_IHDR(png_const_structrp png_ptr, png_uint_32 width, png_uint_32 height, int bit_depth, int color_type, int interlace_type, int compression_type, int filter_type) { int error = 0; /*

Hi George, On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:41 AM, George Burgess IV <george.burgess.iv at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the comments! > >> Have you considered changing our existing behavior to match GCC's >> builtin_object_size instead of adding a new parameter > > Yup! My issue with turning `i1 %min` into `i8 %flags` is that > __builtin_object_size would get

This URL mentions using LLVM IR to perform code analysis. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9939794/how-to-use-llvm-to-generate-a-call-graph But the first problem to solve is how to convert the commands used in Makefiles to the corresponding LLVM commands. https://pastebin.com/RcnA14Qa The above URL shows the makefile screen output from the bash source code. Where `gcc -c`, `gcc` (link with

Hi George, Have you considered changing our existing behavior to match GCC's builtin_object_size instead of adding a new parameter? That may be simpler overall. There's also a clear upgrade strategy -- fold every old style call to "<min> ? 0 : 1". You probably already know this, but GCC folds builtin_object_size(0, 0) to -1 and builtin_object_size(0, 2) to 0. We'll

This is a new build failure as of today. Does this look familiar to anyone? -bw llvm[2]: Compiling CommonProfiling.ll to CommonProfiling.bc for Debug build (bytecode) Intrinsic parameter #1 is wrong! i64 (i8*, i32)* @llvm.objectsize.i64 Intrinsic parameter #1 is wrong! i64 (i8*, i32)* @llvm.objectsize.i64 Intrinsic parameter #1 is wrong! i64 (i8*, i32)* @llvm.objectsize.i64 Intrinsic parameter

Hi David, My question is: why both #ifdef and #else branches are missing? I think at least one of the two should be present... In fact there is a case where the width could be greater then PNG_USER_WIDTH_MAX but not greater then PNG_UINT_31_MAX. That's why I was expecting at least one of the two... Thanks Alberto On Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 22:12 David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>

tl;dr: We'd like to add a bit to @llvm.objectsize to make it optionally be conservative when it's handed a null pointer. Happy Wednesday! We're trying to fix PR23277, which is a bug about how clang+LLVM treat __builtin_object_size when it's given a null pointer. For compatibility with GCC, clang would like to be able to hand back a conservative result (e.g. (size_t)-1), but the

> we lower llvm.objectsize later than we should Is there a well-accepted best (or even just better) place to lower objectsize? I ask because I sorta fear that these kinds of problems will become more pronounced as llvm.is.constant, which is also lowered in CGP, gains popularity. (To be clear, I think it totally makes sense to lower is.constant and objectsize in the same place. I'm just

Optimizer doesn't know how to calculate the object size when it finds condition that cannot be eliminated. There is example: ----------------------------------------------- #include<stdlib.h> #define STATIC_BUF_SIZE 10 #define LARGER_BUF_SIZE 30 size_t foo(int flag) { char *cptr; char chararray[LARGER_BUF_SIZE]; char chararray2[STATIC_BUF_SIZE]; if(flag) cptr =

Thanks for your reply. I'm attempting to expand KLEE to support this intrinsic function. That's why I need to handle this myself. According to the reply, the correct implementation should first find the definition of the object and then determine the size of the object. BTW, can I just refer to the implementation in InstCombineCalls.cpp. On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Matt Arsenault

My mistake. I needed to update llvm-gcc as well. Sorry for the noise. -bw On Dec 23, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > This is a new build failure as of today. Does this look familiar to anyone? > > -bw > > llvm[2]: Compiling CommonProfiling.ll to CommonProfiling.bc for Debug build (bytecode) > Intrinsic parameter #1 is wrong! > i64 (i8*, i32)* @llvm.objectsize.i64

On Feb 27, 2013, at 4:05 AM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Hi, > > Regarding the definition of object for @llvm.objectsize, it is identical to gcc's __builtin_object_size(). So it's not wrong; it's just the way it was defined to be. > > Regarding the BasicAA's usage of these functions, I'm unsure. It seems to me that isObjectSmallerThan()

Hi, In the following instruction sequence, llvm.objectsize.i64(p) returns 6 (the entire *.ll is attached to the mail). Is this correct? Shouldn't the "object" refer to the entire block of memory being allocated? (char*) p = malloc(56) llvm.objectisize.i32(p+50); Thanks Shuxin This question is related to PR14988 (failure in bootstrap build with LTO). Part of the

The documentation of LLVM says that "The llvm.objectsize intrinsic is lowered to a constant representing the size of the object concerned". I'm attempting to lower this intrinsic function to a constant in a pass. Below is the code snippet that I wrote: for (BasicBlock::iterator i = b.begin(), ie = b.end(); (i != ie) && (block_split == false);) { IntrinsicInst *ii =

I made a mistake here, I get zero same as you. I want to fix it to get correct value. On 16.03.2016. 19:28, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >> On 2016-Mar-16, at 09:39, Strahinja Petrovic via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Optimizer doesn't know how to calculate the object size when it finds condition that cannot be eliminated. There is example:

Hi, Regarding the definition of object for @llvm.objectsize, it is identical to gcc's __builtin_object_size(). So it's not wrong; it's just the way it was defined to be. Regarding the BasicAA's usage of these functions, I'm unsure. It seems to me that isObjectSmallerThan() also expects the same definition, but I didn't review the code carefully. When you do a

Hi, Nuno and Arnold: Thank you all for the input. Let me coin a term, say "clique" for this discussion to avoid unnecessary confusion. A clique is statically or dynamically allocated type-free stretch of memory. A "clique" 1) is maximal in the sense that a clique dose not have any enclosing data structure that can completely cover or, partially

On Feb 27, 2013, at 12:37 PM, Shuxin Yang <shuxin.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Nuno and Arnold: > > Thank you all for the input. > > Let me coin a term, say "clique" for this discussion to avoid unnecessary confusion. > A clique is statically or dynamically allocated type-free stretch of memory. A "clique" > 1) is maximal in the sense

Hello LLVMer, I use dragonegg to generate LLVM bitcode. Then I use LLVM interpreter to execute what I get from compilation. However an error occurred and the error message is: "LLVM ERROR: Code generator does not support intrinsic function 'llvm.objectsize.i64'!." As far as I know, objectsize intrinsic is equivalent to gcc built-in function __builtin_object_size. But I don't

Hi Nuno, >>> This is actually non-trivial to accomplish. >>> Metadata doesn't count as a user, so internal functions with no >>> other usage will get removed. >> >> I thought that it is possible to have passes run before the optimizer >> performs such deletions. Is this not practical? Another option is to >> change the current implementation