similar to: LLVM IR pure intrinsic?

Ok, now I think I've found a bug: Consider this C code: void bar(int b) { int a[10]; memset(a, b, 10); } which generates this IR code: define dso_local void @bar(i32 %b) #0 { entry: %b.addr = alloca i32, align 4 %a = alloca [10 x i32], align 16 store i32 %b, i32* %b.addr, align 4 %arraydecay = getelementptr inbounds [10 x i32], [10 x i32]* %a, i64 0, i64 0 %0 = bitcast i32*

Hi Johannes, Thanks for your reply. I now see more clearly how things work with these properties. However, what would be an object whose address is potentially known by a callee? I suppose the intrinsic arguments and global variable? So IIUC, if not restricted by *only properties, an intrinsic could access to: - only its arguments if IntrArgMemOnly specified, - its arguments and the global

Hello, According to include/llvm/IR/Intrinsics.td, InstrReadMem property indicates that the intrinsic only reads from and does not write to memory. Does this mean that it can read anywhere in the memory? Because we already have 'InstrArgMemOnly' for intrinsics which only access memory that its argument(s) point(s) to. If 'InstrReadMem' really means read from anywhere in the

So I removed the 'tail' from the call and try out different properties: - IntrNoMem: memset() and the intrinsic are both optimized away as expected - IntrWriteMem: memset() optimized away by DSE but the intrinsic isn't. I would expect both to be removed, since the intrinsic is now also a dead store. - IntrReadMem: memset() and the intrinsic are both optimized away *unexpectedly* (CSE

Mhm I see now, thanks for your explanation! Son Tuan Vu On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, > > Thank you for your reply. I think I can make this debugify-each mode, but > I guess this is reserved for your GSoC project ? > >

Hi Vedant, Thanks for your reply. More comments inline. Son Tuan Vu On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, > > + Chandler, who has a lot more experience with our pass managers. > > On Apr 20, 2018, at 12:56 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > + Vedant: what do you think about the last point, since

> On Mar 16, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, > > Thank you for your reply. I think I can make this debugify-each mode, but I guess this is reserved for your GSoC project ? No, there's no reserved work. If you'd like to work on this I encourage you to do so. There's plenty of other work slated for the GSoC project.

Hi Vedant, I have tried to implement the fix you proposed, but it didn't work as expected. I created a new *Module* Pass Manager (not Function Pass Manager) and override the *add()* method like this: class DebugifyEachPassManager : public legacy::PassManager { public: void add(Pass *P) override { PassManager::add(createDebugifyPass()); PassManager::add(P);

Hello, Has anyone taken a look at this bug? I really want to fix this, but as Paul pointed out, this requires a lot of care... Thank you for your help Son Tuan Vu On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you all for taking a look at this. I pasted the C source then > deleted it because I was afraid that it was too long to read...

Hello, > On Apr 26, 2018, at 6:44 AM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, > > I have tried to implement the fix you proposed, but it didn't work as expected. I created a new Module Pass Manager (not Function Pass Manager) and override the add() method like this: > > class DebugifyEachPassManager : public legacy::PassManager { >

> On Apr 20, 2018, at 1:46 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Vedant, > > Thanks for your reply. More comments inline. > > Son Tuan Vu > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com <mailto:vsk at apple.com>> wrote: > Hi, > > + Chandler, who has a lot more experience with our pass managers.

Could you file a bug report about this (bugs.llvm.org <http://bugs.llvm.org/>)? If you don't have an account on bugzilla, I'd be happy to file one for you. Please provide exact instructions to reproduce the issue including any compilation flags. thanks, vedant > On May 7, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > Has

Hi Vedant, Thank you for your reply. I think I can make this debugify-each mode, but I guess this is reserved for your GSoC project ? However, if I understand correctly, we do not want to take the output of the first check-debugify (I mean the .ll file with potentially all the WARNINGs and ERRORs after the first pass) as input for the second debugify. What we need is to take the fresh output of

+ Vedant: what do you think about the last point, since Debugify is also related? Son Tuan Vu On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Philip Pfaffe <philip.pfaffe at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Son, > > PassManagerBuilder is used to populate legacy PassManagers. That role is > taken over by PassBuilder for new-PM passes. > > Cheers, > Philip > > 2018-04-18 13:40 GMT+02:00

Hi, + Chandler, who has a lot more experience with our pass managers. > On Apr 20, 2018, at 12:56 PM, Son Tuan VU <sontuan.vu119 at gmail.com> wrote: > > + Vedant: what do you think about the last point, since Debugify is also related? Could you clarify the question? I'm not sure what it is you'd like me to chime in about. > 2, I've asked this question once but

Thanks for your prompt reply. I didn't build the libc at all, I downloaded a pre-built version of the whole toolchain from https://developer.arm.com/open-source/gnu-toolchain/gnu-rm/downloads, so I guess it is an official version provided by ARM and should work? This version targets ARM Cortex-M and Cortex-R family of processors... Son Tuan Vu On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Tim Northover

Thank you all for taking a look at this. I pasted the C source then deleted it because I was afraid that it was too long to read... Here's the code of *foo*. Its real name is *verifyPIN*. The variable *bar* is *userPin*. int *verifyPIN*(char **userPin*, char *cardPin, int *cpt) { int i; int status; int diff; if (*cpt > 0) { status = 0x55; diff = 0x55; for (i = 0; i

On 12 March 2018 at 16:35, Son Tuan VU via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Thanks for your prompt reply. > > I didn't build the libc at all, I downloaded a pre-built version of the > whole toolchain from > https://developer.arm.com/open-source/gnu-toolchain/gnu-rm/downloads, so I > guess it is an official version provided by ARM and should work? This >

As Adrian said, we'd need to see the source of foo() to assess what the location-list for bar ought to be. Without actually going to look, I would guess that 'poplt' is considered a conditional move, therefore r4's contents are not guaranteed after it executes (i.e. it is a clobber). If one operand of 'poplt' is 'pc' then of course it is also a conditional indirect

Hello, Does anyone know if it is possible to RAUW the Metadata? I took a look at the source for it and IIUC, it is not possible. What should I do to implement the RAUW for DINode (more precisely DILocation)? Thank you for your help, Son Tuan Vu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: