| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Introduce an Address type to bundle a pointer value with an
alignment. Introduce APIs on CGBuilderTy to work with Address
values. Change core APIs on CGF/CGM to traffic in Address where
appropriate. Require alignments to be non-zero. Update a ton
of code to compute and propagate alignment information.
As part of this, I've promoted CGBuiltin's EmitPointerWithAlignment
helper function to CGF and made use of it in a number of places in
the expression emitter.
The end result is that we should now be significantly more correct
when performing operations on objects that are locally known to
be under-aligned. Since alignment is not reliably tracked in the
type system, there are inherent limits to this, but at least we
are no longer confused by standard operations like derived-to-base
conversions and array-to-pointer decay. I've also fixed a large
number of bugs where we were applying the complete-object alignment
to a pointer instead of the non-virtual alignment, although most of
these were hidden by the very conservative approach we took with
member alignment.
Also, because IRGen now reliably asserts on zero alignments, we
should no longer be subject to an absurd but frustrating recurring
bug where an incomplete type would report a zero alignment and then
we'd naively do a alignmentAtOffset on it and emit code using an
alignment equal to the largest power-of-two factor of the offset.
We should also now be emitting much more aggressive alignment
attributes in the presence of over-alignment. In particular,
field access now uses alignmentAtOffset instead of min.
Several times in this patch, I had to change the existing
code-generation pattern in order to more effectively use
the Address APIs. For the most part, this seems to be a strict
improvement, like doing pointer arithmetic with GEPs instead of
ptrtoint. That said, I've tried very hard to not change semantics,
but it is likely that I've failed in a few places, for which I
apologize.
ABIArgInfo now always carries the assumed alignment of indirect and
indirect byval arguments. In order to cut down on what was already
a dauntingly large patch, I changed the code to never set align
attributes in the IR on non-byval indirect arguments. That is,
we still generate code which assumes that indirect arguments have
the given alignment, but we don't express this information to the
backend except where it's semantically required (i.e. on byvals).
This is likely a minor regression for those targets that did provide
this information, but it'll be trivial to add it back in a later
patch.
I partially punted on applying this work to CGBuiltin. Please
do not add more uses of the CreateDefaultAligned{Load,Store}
APIs; they will be going away eventually.
llvm-svn: 246985
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 230795
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 230783
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
trailing elements as a single loop, rather than sometimes emitting a nest of
several loops. This fixes a bug where CodeGen would sometimes try to emit an
expression with the wrong type for the element being initialized. Plus various
other minor cleanups to the IR produced for array new initialization.
llvm-svn: 210079
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
clang still doesn't emit the right llvm code when initializing multi-D arrays it seems.
For e.g. the following code would still crash for me on Windows 7, 64 bit:
auto f4 = new int[100][200][300]{{{1,2,3}, {4, 5, 6}}, {{10, 20, 30}}};
It seems that the final new loop that iterates through each outermost array and memsets it to zero gets confused with its final ptr arithmetic.
This patch ensures that it converts the pointer to the allocated type (int [200][300]) before incrementing it (instead of using the base type: 'int').
Richard somewhat squeamishly approved the patch (as a quick fix to potentially make it into 3.4) - while exhorting for a more optimized fix in the future. http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2398
Thanks Richard!
llvm-svn: 197294
|
|
|
list, each element of the initializer list may provide more than one of the
base elements of the array. Be sure to initialize the right type and bump the
array pointer by the right amount.
llvm-svn: 196995
|
