similar to: [LLVMdev] Any Optimization Suggestion to Get Rid of AddrSpaceCast around PHI

Given a pointer, does any addrspacecast affect the pointer's dereferenceablity ? For example, %pm = addrspaacecast float addrspacecast(n)* %pn to float addrspacecast(m)* %r = load float addrspace(m)* %pm In another word. the question is whether the following is true ? isDereferenceablePointer(pn) == isDereferenceablePointer(pm) [Note that the function is defined as

Hi all! On x86_64, segment prefix fs: is in address space 257 and gs: in address space 256. (BTW: are there constants for these magic values?) How can I use this in IR? I want to express this assembler code in IR: mov RAX, 8; mov RAX, GS:[RAX]; ret; I tried the following: define i64 @getStackBottom(i64 %addr) { entry: %ptr = inttoptr

On 16 Mar 2015, at 08:25, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > The LangRef says this about addrspacecast: "Note that if the address > space conversion is legal then both result and operand refer to the > same memory location.". This brings forth two related questions: > > 1. what happens if you execute an "invalid" addrspacecast?

> What do you mean exactly by "behave differently on the other side of the cast”? Do you have a concrete example? I was hesitant to say only in that it is probably an "abuse of mechanics" and definitely playing with fire, _however_ the target I'm working on has extensive bit operations for a subset of memory, including atomic test-and-set, etc. It's convenient to be

I'm not sure what the usual "ping time" is for llvm-dev, but may I ask if there are any updates on this? It appears that the following lines are the root cause of the reordering (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/fdcb27105537f77c78c4473d4f7c47146ddbab69/llvm/lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstructionCombining.cpp#L2175): // Handle gep(bitcast x) and gep(gep x, 0, 0, 0). Value

The following combine(-enabling transformation) makes me uncomfortable:   gep(addrspacecast(gep p0) to p1)   addrspacecast(gep(gep p0)) to p1 It's applied at visitAddrSpaceCast in InstCombineCasts.cpp. Before this, I'd always assumed address spaces were very much "user domain". Datalayout even supports marking a space as "non-integral", to designate that manipulation as

It appears that this behaviour of InstCombine is at least somewhat intended, as there are several tests that fail after the change mentioned before: cast.ll, gep-addrspace.ll and getelementptr.ll in test/Transforms/InstCombine. I feel a little uncomfortable applying the patch after knowing this, and removing those tests doesn't seem like a great solution. What are your thoughts? For now, I

On 17 Mar 2015, at 20:06, Junjie Gu <jgu222 at gmail.com> wrote: >> I've just been debugging a related issue with regard to commutativity of address space casts with respect to other operations. One of the optimisers is turning an add after an address space cast into an add before the address space cast. On our architecture, this results in different bounds information being

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

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

This is a follow-up discussion on http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140324/101899.html. The front-end change was already pushed in r204677, so we want to continue with the IR optimization. In general, we want to write an IR pass to convert generic address space usage to non-generic address space usage, because accessing the generic address space in CUDA and OpenCL is

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

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Matt Arsenault <Matthew.Arsenault at amd.com>wrote: > On 03/25/2014 02:31 PM, Jingyue Wu wrote: > > > However, we have three concerns on this: > a) I doubt this optimization is valid for all targets, because LLVM > language reference ( > http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#addrspacecast-to-instruction) says > addrspacecast "can be

Philip: I think there are two separate issues: 1) Handling GC pointers stored in stack locations -- tracking their liveness, reporting them to the GC. etc. 2) Treating pointers to stack locations as GC-pointers. I think the two options that you presented here are for solving (1). I'm trying to solve issue (2) using alloca in addrspace(1). Basically, we want to create a pointer to a stack

Hi, I'm working on OpenCL and I'm using clang as compiler (based on clang 3.7.0). I have a issue, I'm generating a bitcode file (that I can print before before the generation). But when I'm trying to read it again with clang, I have this issue: "error: Invalid record" How can I managed to know where it comes from? Thank you, Romaric Here is what is print before the

Thanks, this makes the use case much more clear. Now though, as far as I would like actually to see supported in LLVM the capability of not having any special meaning assigned to address space 0 your proposal goes slightly in contrast with how I always thought of address spaces in LLVM. I also have to say that I don’t know deeply how address spaces are meant to be intended in LLVM so my vision of

Thank you for the prompt response, Matt. On Jan 20, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Matt Arsenault <Matthew.Arsenault at amd.com> wrote: > Since 3.4 you need to use the addrspacecast instruction to cast between address spaces. It's possible there are still some places left that haven't been fixed yet to use it instead of creating bit casts. Are you saying you think this is a bug and it should

Sanjoy Das wrote: > In your > example, foo will have to treat its argument differently depending on > whether it is a GC pointer or not. In practice, this is not true of many functions that don't call other functions. Take the example of a simple "print" function that takes a void * to cast and print, type_int to determine what to cast to: why should it care about whether

On 2 Sep 2015, at 02:54, Joseph Tremoulet via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Reading further, I see both that addrspacecast "can be a no-op cast or a complex value modification"[2] and that bitcast "may only be [used on pointers] with the same address space"[4]. > > So I'm getting the impression that it's ok to have a model with

Hi, I just found out that it's not practical to mark only some pointers for GC. Consider: %a = i8 addrspace(1)* malloc(...) %b = i8* alloca(...) The issue then becomes that routine functions declared: declare i1 foo(i8 addrspace(1)*) have a choice of accepting either gc'able or non-gc'able pointers. Is there no way to have a reasonable mix of both? Ram