similar to: [LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a DataLayout?

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pete Cooper" <peter_cooper at apple.com> > To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 3:34:59 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Are we ready to completely move away from the optionality of a

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > I have a question: > > > 1) Synthesizing a "default" boring DataLayout for all modules that don't > > specify one. > > What is a default boring value for endianness? > Little. Sorry, but LE won here. I mean, we could make the default big-endian just to test the

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 19, 2014, at 1:22 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > > > I've just wasted a day chasing my tail because of subtleties introduced > to handle the optionality of the DataLayout. I would like to never do this > again. =] > > > > We now have

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 20, 2014, at 8:22 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >>> Hi Eric, >>> >>> Can you elaborate on your goals and what problem you are trying to solve? As

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of Chris Lattner > On Oct 20, 2014, at 8:22 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Eric, > >> > >> Can you elaborate on your goals and what

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at google.com> > wrote: >> >> Agreed. The DataLayout should move (back) to the TargetMachine and live >> there (I'm doing that part right now). I don't particularly want to put it >> on the module

On Wed Oct 22 2014 at 12:33:53 PM Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 20, 2014, at 10:41 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> So the storage for DataLayout right now is on a per-subtarget basis. > >>> I.e. if you don't construct one in the module the backend will make > >>> one up based on information in

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Can you elaborate on your goals and what problem you are trying to solve? As Chandler points out, DataLayout is part of module for a reason. Which is an interesting point - it's not really. (This was also going to be part of my talk next week, but since it's been brought up...) So

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > ping! > > Sanjoy Das wrote: > # Proposed Solution: >> >> We introduce a "new" LLVM type. I will still refer to it as GCREF >> here, but it may actually still be "<ty> addrspace(k)*" where k is >> specially noted in the datalayout. >>

Hi everyone, I was happily using MCJIT for over a year until yesterday when I created a function call with an argument of a struct type. That caused a crash in SelectionDAG around DataLayout::getAlignment(). I remember the noise about the DataLayout started being mandatory. But I cannot find precise information. Should I set the DataLayout in every Module created? Where can I get the

hey, so I'm writing in cpp. the documentation says that TheModule -> getDataLayout should return const DataLayout, but instead it is returning std::string. I require it to return DataLayout, as I generalize my function pass manager to accept the DataLayout constant as an argument, it being the only thing in common amongst both the ExecutionEngine and the Module class. Any pointers to

Hi all, We have multiple DataLayout object in flight during a compilation: at least the one owned by the Module and the one owned by the TargetMachine. There are two issues: 1) What if they differ? I guess we could assert at the beginning of CodeGen. 2) The DataLayout has internal mutable state (a cache of StructLayout). The latter is my current concern: the cache in DataLayout is based on Type

Hi, I've been debugging this issue for many hours, and would like a sanity check. The issue is that DL (DataLayout) is nullptr inside isDereferenceablePointer() no matter what I try. Why is DataLayout ever nullptr (shouldn't it get defaults?), and what should I do to make it non-nullptr? Thanks. Ram

Hi all, We are developing our own compiler front-end and use LLVM as back-end. We generate .ll files and use opt/llc to generate target specific code. When I generate datalayout information in my .ll file it seems that it enables more optimization from LLVM opt. How can I determine which optimization are driven by datalayout information generation ? In other words, when I don't generate

Hi all, The Language Reference says: "The function of the data layout string may not be what you expect. Notably, this is not a specification from the frontend of what alignment the code generator should use. Instead, if specified, the target data layout is required to match what the ultimate code generator expects. This string is used by the mid-level optimizers to improve code, and this

Are you expecting to use a single set of IR files to generate code for multiple targets? Otherwise I'm not sure why your .ll files would necessarily lack the data layout information. The reason I ask is that LLVM IR is fundamentally not target independent in ways far beyond the presence or absence of the data layout string. For gory details:

Eric Christopher wrote: > How are you trying to call it? Do you have a DataLayout? In test/Analysis/ValueTracking/memory-dereferenceable.ll, just change byval to dereferenceable(8), and %dparam won't match (see lib/IR/Value.cpp:521 for the logic that is supposed to fire). How do I get it to pass? I tried introducing a target-triple and target-datalayout, but it didn't help.

I’ve been debugging SAFECode source code files, and line 170 in ArrayBoundCheckLocal.cpp has been causing the following compilation error: In file included from /Users/peterfinn/Desktop/llvm_trunk_2/projects/safecode/lib/ArrayBoundChecks/ArrayBoundCheckLocal.cpp:18: In file included from

It appears llc gives preference to the default target datalayout whereas opt gives preference to the module datalayout. Is there a reason they behave differently? From llc.cpp: // Add the target data from the target machine, if it exists, or the module. if (const TargetData *TD = Target.getTargetData()) PM.add(new TargetData(*TD)); else PM.add(new TargetData(&mod));

Hi all, Can someone give me advice on what should be a good definition of target datalayout for an ARM cortex-A9 + neon target and x86 32-bit ? Shall I use a different definition for a cortex-A9 without neon ? Thanks for your advices Best Regards Seb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: