similar to: [RFC] Requiring explicit address space arguments for PointerType

I agree, improving this makes sense. Alexander, I don’t think that “LLVM_DEFAULT_AS_PARAM” is the right way to go, I would just remove the “ = 0” default parameter entirely. -Chris > On Jul 23, 2020, at 11:02 AM, Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > I'd be very much in favor of this, thanks for pushing ;) > > On Wed,

> I might be missing your point here - but don't forget that the local globals are always PC-relative direct loads/stores. I did forget! Thanks for clarifying, now I understand. On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 20:51, Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 12:18 PM Mitch Phillips via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On Jul 22, 2016, at 7:28 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > >> On Jul 22, 2016, at 12:31 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> On 22 Jul 2016, at 07:14, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> Just tried to set it up there:

I just want to point out that the issue of incompatible history is not new. This has been getting discussed all the way back in July 2016. http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-July/102657.html <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-July/102657.html> As James said in that email: > That we'll be getting incompatible history has been glossed over, and it is >

Mon Ping, Thanks for the tip, but I can't for the life of me seem to get the Value from a StoreSDNode. From looking at the SelectionDAGNodes header file, the only class that has the getValue function call is SrcValueSDNode that returns a Value type. The only class that has getType is a ConstantPoolSDNode. I don't think that ConstantPoolSDNode is what I want and when I try to cast the

Well shoot, you beat me to it. :) I've been working on a similar tool but it's not ready yet. Looking forward to trying yours! -David James Y Knight via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > I'm about to post exactly this tool -- I've been testing it on the > CHERI forks of llvm/clang/lld (lots of history and merges and stuff

OK, I just took my first non-root user live on my Samba 3.0.7 system. Printing is via cups, with drivers stored in the print$ share. This user is a local power user. She can add printers, or root can add them. Root can also print from them. If this user tries to print anything (a test page even) she gets a non-verbose error that looks like a permissions error. She can view the queues

Hellp One of the data members of class PointerType  is [unsigned] AddressSpace What is its role? I didn`t find sufficient description about it in the LLVM documentation. Could someone please point me where can I get description about different AddressSpaces? What I saw that address spaces may affect how optimizations are performed –Where can I get more information about this issue. Thank you

Every GlobalAddress has a GlobalValue, Every GlobalValue is a PointerType, Every PointerType has an AddressSpace. So is it ok to add a method getAddressSpace in GlobalAddressSDNode class itself? Currently we have to do GSDN->getGlobal()->getType()->getAddressSpace(). - Sanjiv

On 17 Mar 2015, at 13:11, Tyro Software <softwaretyro at gmail.com> wrote: > > As an alternative to fixing the "char == 8 bits" presumption would using non-uniform pointer types have been another possible approach, e.g. keep char as 8 bit but have char* encode both the word address and the byte location within it (i.e. one extra bit in this 16-bit case). Of course this is

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 09:52, David Chisnall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The IR disruptions for CHERI aren’t that major (the main thing is that we allow alloca’s in different address spaces, but that’s not too difficult to upstream), but it does fail to tick one box that you didn’t list: We would like this feature upstreamed -Matt -------------- next part

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote: > I think it all boils down to whether you think it is time to incorporate > these extensions into LLVM IR and how long do you think it will take to > do so? Sure, any time is good. The reason we don't have this now is primarily because noone has stepped up to contribute it. If you're like to start this, I'd be

Thank you Chris and Christopher, I agree... the Embedded C Language Extensions report provides a good foundation to build on, and what it proposes as far as Address Space is probably a super set of what we have in our existing compiler (and probably would like to keep) so no conflict there. I also agree that regardless of how we would like to deal with pointers, the same extensions must be applied

On 22 Jul 2016, at 07:14, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Just tried to set it up there: https://github.com/joker-eph/llvm-unified > (git log —follow is working fine with this setup). > > While it preserves the history fine (I.e. the hashes are identical to the current git), it has a drawback: there isn’t anymore a common ancestor for the

LLVM makes several assumptions about address space 0. However, alloca is presently constrained to always return this address space. There's no real way to avoid using alloca, so without this there is no way to opt out of these assumptions. The problematic assumptions include: * That the pointer size used for the stack is the same size as the code size pointer, which is also the

Dear All, I’m working on a project that extends C. I’m adding a new type of pointer that is a fat pointer. It has some metadata about the pointed object besides the starting address of the object. Currently I implemented this pointer as an llvm:StructType. In llvm::Type generation function llvm::Type *CodeGenTypes::ConvertType(QualType T) in the case for clang::Type::Pointer, instead of creating

For a datapoint, Julia uses the following function description to implement approximately the capability of those functions. We then also verify that there's no direct inttoptr/ptrtoint into our gc-tracked AddressSpace with a custom verifier pass (among other sanity checks). I can provide additional details and pointers to our gc-root tracking algorithm implementation if desired (I also plan

On 26 Dec 2017, at 10:13, Bhatu via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > According to my understanding, it seems that the result of realloc will not technically alias the original pointer. When the realloc is done in-place the reference says: > "The original pointer ptr is invalidated and any access to it is undefined behavior (even if reallocation was

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 20:35, Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com> wrote: > Oh right, you don’t have the addrspace in the input. Input to what? Even if it's available it's wrong without a fixup pass. Still, custom override for GEP as you talk about later could overcome the problem... > I have long wanted a way for targets to take over the GEP expansion which may help you?

----- Mensaje original ---- De: Benjamin Smedberg <benjamin at smedbergs.us> Para: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Enviado: viernes, 22 de febrero, 2008 22:36:40 Asunto: Re: [LLVMdev] Calling functions -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Álvaro Castro wrote: | Hello! | | | I'm trying LLVM for generating code and I found