similar to: [LLVMdev] Question on equivalence of pointer types

> On Dec 8, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > Partially answering my own question, in general these are not > equivalent because LLVM allows for pointers in different address > spaces to have different sizes. However, are they equivalent if > pointers in addrspace(1) have the same size as pointers in > addrspace(0)? > >

I am confused by this bit of code in instcombine: 09789 if (GetElementPtrInst *GEPI = dyn_cast<GetElementPtrInst>(Op)) { 09790 const Value *GEPI0 = GEPI->getOperand(0); 09791 // TODO: Consider a target hook for valid address spaces for this xform. 09792 if (isa<ConstantPointerNull>(GEPI0) && 09793

Inline. From: Philip Reames [mailto:listmail at philipreames.com] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 11:01 AM To: Swaroop Sridhar <Swaroop.Sridhar at microsoft.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> Cc: Joseph Tremoulet <jotrem at microsoft.com>; Andy Ayers <andya at microsoft.com>; Russell Hadley <rhadley at

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

> -----Original Message----- > From: Philip Reames [mailto:listmail at philipreames.com] > Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 9:38 AM > To: Swaroop Sridhar <Swaroop.Sridhar at microsoft.com>; llvm-dev <llvm- > dev at lists.llvm.org>; Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> > Cc: Joseph Tremoulet <jotrem at microsoft.com>; Andy Ayers > <andya at

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

Currently, the alloca instruction always allocates in the generic address space (0). This proposal is to extend the semantics of alloca instruction to allow allocation in any specified address space. Proposed Syntax <result> = alloca [inalloca] <type> [, <ty> <NumElements>] [, align <alignment>] [, addrspace <num>] ; yields type addrspace(num)*:result

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > Consider this pseudo-IR and some possible transforms that I would expect to > be semantics preserving: > > void f(i32* readonly %a, i32* %b) { > llvm.assume(%a == %b) > store i32 42, i32* %b > } > ... > %p = alloca i32 > store i32 13, i32* %p > call f(i32* readonly %p,

On 08/26/2015 07:02 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:46 PM Swaroop Sridhar via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > Currently, the alloca instruction always allocates in the generic > address space (0). > > This proposal is to extend the semantics of alloca instruction to >

Please see inline. From: Chandler Carruth [mailto:chandlerc at google.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 7:03 PM To: Swaroop Sridhar <Swaroop.Sridhar at microsoft.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>; Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: alloca -- specify address space for

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> > Cc: "cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu Developers" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent:

Hi! Attached patches split init.trampoline into adjust.trampoline and init.trampoline, like in gcc. As mentioned in the previous mail, I've not made a documentation patch, since I'm not sure about what the documented semantics of llvm.adjust.trampoline should be. Thanks! -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>, "llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org > Sent: Friday, August 7, 2015 7:35:57 PM > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev]

Hi! I would appreciate some feedback from someone with experience in SCEV/SE. D39346 tries to fix an issue in LV (PR34965) that exposes a limitation in SCEV/SE. The best solution to the LV issue might not be a fix at SCEV/SE level but we may want to report/address SCEV/SE limitation as well. For the snippet below, LV expects SE to return a SCEVAddRecExpr for %21. However, SE returns ((4 * (zext

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?

Hello, list I am not quite sure if what I'm experiencing is a bug or intentional behavior. In the code below the result of a function call is a deopt arg to llvm.experimental.gc.statepoint (http://llvm.org/docs/Statepoints.html#llvm-experimental-gc-statepoint-intrinsic). Therefore a Stack Map containing location of this variable is created upon code generation. Here's the complete

Thanks for the feedback, Sanjoy. > SCEV is fairly conservative around PHI nodes that aren't recurrences and aren't obviously equivalent to a min-max branch-phi idiom. Is that the limitation you're running into here? Yes, that's exactly the problem. The problematic PHI nodes (%bc.resume.val and %bc.resume.val1) aren't either recurrences or related to min-max idioms. I

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

> On Apr 30, 2018, at 2:58 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:14 AM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: >> The LLVM address space design has pushed well beyond the sensible boundaries >> of less-is-more and really needs some concerted effort to actually define the expected >> properties of different

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. >>