similar to: RFC: Adding argument allocas

To recap, it seems like there are two people so far opposed to this proposal, and tentative support from a number of others. It's not clear to me if I should go ahead with this. I'll try to bug some more people to get more input here. In the meantime, I think I'll implement the simple pattern matching, since that can be done incrementally, and can be simplified afterwards by the IR

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 7:05:44 PM > Subject: [llvm-dev] RFC: Adding argument allocas > Clang is currently missing some low-hanging performance and code size > opportunities when receiving

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > So IIUC basically the *only* reason for this IR change is that we don’t > want to pattern match in debug build? > I don't understand right now why we wouldn’t want to do this? > If we need to pattern match such a basic construct, it suggests to me that we have the wrong representation, and we

Thank you vivek pandya. I will try my best to do things as you mentioned. Regards Hameeza Ahmed On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 1:00 AM, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Send llvm-dev mailing list submissions to > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >

Hi folk, I'm writing a set of small C code to verify whether my pass handle some instruction correctly. One of the instruction I want to test is "va_arg", but compiling my variadic function does not generate any va_arg instruction. Is va_arg deprecated? Will va_arg instruction ever be generated by any front-end? The source code and llvm instructions are appended as follows. the

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Mmm... maybe. The part I really don't like is the implied store: there > are a lot of transformations which specifically reason about store > instructions, and they would all need to be fixed to specifically deal with > "alloca with an argument" so it doesn't block

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Friedman, Eli via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 12/9/2016 8:45 AM, Reid Kleckner wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> So IIUC basically the *only* reason for this IR change is that we don’t >> want to pattern match in debug build? >> I don't

Neal, FYI, my group has added a flag to llvm-gcc for emitting the va_arg instruction (instead of lowering in the front-end), and we also have an implementation of the VAARG instruction for X86-64. (which is currently not implemented in the LLVM backend). Both of these things will be sent upstream to LLVM soon, pending some more testing and review. If you are dire need of these features now, I

Hi, So the Variable Argument Handling Intrinsics section of the LangRef (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#variable-argument-handling-intrinsics) lists an example that segfaults. Try the following on x86_64: -- 8< -- define i32 @test(i32 %X, ...) { ; Initialize variable argument processing %ap = alloca i8* %ap2 = bitcast i8** %ap to i8* call void @llvm.va_start(i8* %ap2) ; Read a

Hello everyone, I think I have found an gvn / alias analysis related bug, but before opening an issue on the tracker I wanted to see if I am missing something. I have the following testcase: define spir_kernel void @test(<2 x i32*> %in1, <2 x i32*> %in2, i32* %out) { > entry: > ; Just some temporary storage > %tmp.0 = alloca i32 > %tmp.1 = alloca i32 > %tmp.i =

Hello all, A few years ago, I added the inalloca feature to LLVM IR so that Clang could be C++ ABI compatible with MSVC on 32-bit x86. The feature works, but there is room for improvement. I recently took the time to write up a design using token values that will hopefully be better named and easier to work with and around. For the technical details of the proposal, I've written up the RFC

this is definitely a bug in AA. 225 for (auto I = CS2.arg_begin(), E = CS2.arg_end(); I != E; ++I) { 226 const Value *Arg = *I; 227 if (!Arg->getType()->isPointerTy()) -> 228 continue; 229 unsigned CS2ArgIdx = std::distance(CS2.arg_begin(), I); 230 auto CS2ArgLoc = MemoryLocation::getForArgument(CS2, CS2ArgIdx, TLI);

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > If we're keeping types on GEP, > You mean rather than just dropping gep entirely & doing manual pointer arithmetic? (& moving inbounds to an attribute on pointer addition, I guess?) > then IMO we should keep them on allocas and globals. It keeps the IR human > readable. > & what of

Okay, so then it sounds like, for now, the right fix is to stop marking masked.gather and masked.scatter with intrarg* options. On Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 1:26 PM Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > We might have specification bug here, but we appear to implement what we > specified. argmemonly is specified as only considering pointer typed > arguments. It's

+ a few others. After following this rabbit hole a bit, there are a lot of mutually recursive calls, etc, that may or may not do the right thing with vectors of pointers. I can fix *this* particular bug with the attached patch. However, it's mostly papering over stuff. Nothing seems to know what to do with a memorylocation that is a vector of pointers. They all expect memorylocation to be a

Sorry for the delay. Arthur Eubanks has started working on the design here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D74651 I felt I should follow up here about that. On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 6:47 PM Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> wrote: > It doesn’t seem like multiple call sites should be a problem if they’re > sufficiently similar? If the argument layout for each callsite is the > same,

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> > To: "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com>, "Davide Italiano" > <davide at freebsd.org>, "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> > Cc: "Chris Sakalis" <chrissakalis at gmail.com>, "David Majnemer" >

Thank you for the quick fix, I can no longer reproduce the issue. As far a releases go, I am guessing that this is going to be in 4.0? Best, Chris On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > Yeah, i just hope it doesn't regress scatter/gather vector code badly. > But at least it's correct now? > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:11

Great, thank you! On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Chris Sakalis" <chrissakalis at gmail.com> > *To: *"Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> > *Cc: *"Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "David Majnemer" < > david.majnemer

target datalayout = "e-m:x-p:32:32-i64:64-f80:32-n8:16:32-a:0:32-S32" target triple = "i686-pc-windows-msvc" declare void @llvm.va_start(i8**) declare void @llvm.va_end(i8**) define i64 @foo(...) { %va = alloca i8*, i32 16 ; 4 words should be enough? call void @llvm.va_start(i8** %va) %x = va_arg i8** %va, i64 call void @llvm.va_end(i8** %va) ret i64 %x }