dobbelaj-snps wrote:
Next builds seem to succeed. Looks like an instability of the lldb buildbot ?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137719
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
llvm-ci wrote:
LLVM Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder `lldb-x86_64-debian`
running on `lldb-x86_64-debian` while building `clang` at step 6 "test".
Full details are available at:
https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/162/builds/23916
Here is the relevant piece of the build lo
dobbelaj-snps wrote:
> Could someone with commit access please merge this? Thanks!
Done
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137719
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commit
https://github.com/dobbelaj-snps closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137719
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
brunodf-snps wrote:
Could someone with commit access please merge this? Thanks!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137719
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/rjmccall approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137719
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
brunodf-snps wrote:
(Not sure if this requires re-approval, but I think this is ready to be merged.)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137719
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
https://github.com/brunodf-snps updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137719
>From d63c8fe4fcc8e89933bf3c1cc176941b0b9094fa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bruno De Fraine
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 14:12:00 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] [clang][CodeGen] Make tbaa-array test more robust
Av
brunodf-snps wrote:
> I was still adding test cases involving may_alias, but I still found problems
This has been solved in 1a40063bc73ee468cb6c8634505232b6f2d833ec. This requires
to update the member types in the struct type node in case of an array member
with may_alias tag. I found it is t
https://github.com/brunodf-snps updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137719
>From d63c8fe4fcc8e89933bf3c1cc176941b0b9094fa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bruno De Fraine
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 14:12:00 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] [clang][CodeGen] Make tbaa-array test more robust
Av
brunodf-snps wrote:
Hm, I was still adding test cases involving may_alias, but I still found
problems with the following:
```
typedef int __attribute__((may_alias)) aliasing_int;
typedef int __attribute__((may_alias)) aliasing_array[10];
struct E { aliasing_int x[4]; aliasing_array y; };
```
B
@@ -28,25 +30,39 @@ int bar(C *c) {
int bar2(C *c) {
// CHECK-NEW-LABEL: _Z4bar2P1C
-// CHECK-NEW: load i32, {{.*}}, !tbaa [[TAG_int:!.*]]
+// CHECK-NEW: load i32, {{.*}}, !tbaa [[TAG_C_x:!.*]]
return c->x[2];
}
int bar3(C *c, int j) {
// CHECK-NEW-LABEL: _Z4bar3P1Ci
-
https://github.com/kosarev approved this pull request.
LGTM.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137719
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -28,25 +30,39 @@ int bar(C *c) {
int bar2(C *c) {
// CHECK-NEW-LABEL: _Z4bar2P1C
-// CHECK-NEW: load i32, {{.*}}, !tbaa [[TAG_int:!.*]]
+// CHECK-NEW: load i32, {{.*}}, !tbaa [[TAG_C_x:!.*]]
return c->x[2];
}
int bar3(C *c, int j) {
// CHECK-NEW-LABEL: _Z4bar3P1Ci
-
@@ -28,25 +30,39 @@ int bar(C *c) {
int bar2(C *c) {
// CHECK-NEW-LABEL: _Z4bar2P1C
-// CHECK-NEW: load i32, {{.*}}, !tbaa [[TAG_int:!.*]]
+// CHECK-NEW: load i32, {{.*}}, !tbaa [[TAG_C_x:!.*]]
return c->x[2];
}
int bar3(C *c, int j) {
// CHECK-NEW-LABEL: _Z4bar3P1Ci
-
https://github.com/rjmccall approved this pull request.
LGTM
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137719
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/brunodf-snps updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137719
>From d63c8fe4fcc8e89933bf3c1cc176941b0b9094fa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bruno De Fraine
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 14:12:00 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] [clang][CodeGen] Make tbaa-array test more robust
Av
@@ -4503,7 +4503,29 @@ LValue CodeGenFunction::EmitArraySubscriptExpr(const
ArraySubscriptExpr *E,
E->getType(), !getLangOpts().PointerOverflowDefined, SignedIndices,
E->getExprLoc(), &arrayType, E->getBase());
EltBaseInfo = ArrayLV.getBaseInfo();
-EltT
https://github.com/rjmccall commented:
Thanks, those seem like good reasons.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137719
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -4503,7 +4503,29 @@ LValue CodeGenFunction::EmitArraySubscriptExpr(const
ArraySubscriptExpr *E,
E->getType(), !getLangOpts().PointerOverflowDefined, SignedIndices,
E->getExprLoc(), &arrayType, E->getBase());
EltBaseInfo = ArrayLV.getBaseInfo();
-EltT
https://github.com/rjmccall edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137719
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
brunodf-snps wrote:
> I'm surprised we need all this. Since we don't distinguish arrays from their
> elements in TBAA, is it not sufficient to just make sure that array subscript
> expressions produce an l-value with the same TBAA metadata as their base
> l-value?
The code is written after [t
https://github.com/brunodf-snps updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137719
>From d63c8fe4fcc8e89933bf3c1cc176941b0b9094fa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bruno De Fraine
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 14:12:00 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] [clang][CodeGen] Make tbaa-array test more robust
Av
https://github.com/rjmccall commented:
I'm surprised we need all this. Since we don't distinguish arrays from their
elements in TBAA, is it not sufficient to just make sure that array subscript
expressions produce an l-value with the same TBAA metadata as their base
l-value?
https://github.co
brunodf-snps wrote:
> @kosarev @fhahn @rjmccall @efriedma-quic @hfinkel
Ping.
@AaronBallman @nikic any idea who else could review TBAA changes?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137719
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
h
25 matches
Mail list logo
