similar to: [LLVMdev] How to lower the intrinsic function 'llvm.objectsize'?

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

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, 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

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, 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

> In the "llvm.objectsize" context we pass an object "based on p" to getObjectSize: "p+50". In the basicaa context, we wanna know whether an access is beyond the bounds of an underlying object (undefined behavior land) so we pass the underlying object (which in your example would be the "p" returned from malloc) to the getObjectSize function. > > In

On 2/27/13 11:21 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > 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

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

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

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

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, I encountered an issue when attempting to create a call to function malloc. I just want to do a simple thing, suppose there is a variable p, if p is a pointer then allocate memory to p. Source code: int *p; p = (int *) malloc(sizeof(*p)); Try to generate LLVM IR for it: Type *tp = p->getType(); AllocaInst* arg_alloc = builder.CreateAlloca(tp);//builder is IRBuilder

Hallo! I am using on a system based on Debian GNU/Linux Etch on AMD64 platform Linux and Solaris running in a HVM domU but they both seem to be 32bit environments. I know so because 64bit Linux didnt boot and said something about am I trying to run it in 32 bit environment; and because i had to install 32bit Oracle because 64bit Oracle said it expected BIT_SIZE=64 and got BIT_SIZE=32. And also,

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

> 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 =

I’m debugging SAFECode source code files, and in AllocatorInfo.cpp, in the function getObjectSize(Value* V), the function getAnalysis<DataLayout>() is called. I’ve run into this problem before, and the first time I saw it, my employer recommended I use M.getDataLayout() instead, where M was a reference to a Module. However, in getObjectSize(Value* V), there is no Module reference in the

>>>>> Travers Ching >>>>> on Tue, 15 Jan 2019 12:50:45 -0800 writes: > I have a toy alt-rep string package that generates > randomly seeded strings. example: library(altstringisode) > x <- altrandomStrings(1e8) head(x) [1] > "2PN0bdwPY7CA8M06zVKEkhHgZVgtV1" > "5PN2qmWqBlQ9wQj99nsQzldVI5ZuGX" ... etc

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