hfinkel added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D9403#207395, @rjmccall wrote:
> Okay, thank you, I understand what you're saying now and you're completely > right. It makes sense for this to be tied to the value stored into the > l-value, as that actions is basically what's establishing a stronger rule > about that pointer. > > Side question: is the use of an overloaded intrinsic here going to be a > problem, since intrinsics can't be overloaded on arbitrary user types (e.g. > structs)? Philip Reames fixed that (for almost all types) a few months ago. The IRBuilder code works around the remaining cases by casting to i8*. > Is there anything about the analysis that breaks if we bitcast the operand to > i8* and then bitcast the result back to the actual type? No, it is just more IR. > Is this question eventually being mooted by the Great Pointer-Typing Change? > :) Yes :) http://reviews.llvm.org/D9403 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
