[PATCH] IR: Check inalloca call argument originating from parameter
david.majnemer at gmail.com
Mon May 5 10:07:47 PDT 2014
The patch submitted for review has already been updated to use Lint instead
On Monday, May 5, 2014, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote:
> Speaking as someone with a language frontend which fairly frequently
> generates nonsensical code you'd never see out of Clang, I *strongly* agree
> that this functionality should not be in the Verifier. :)
> On 05/03/2014 11:36 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> Heh. Was actua0lly looking at this in my post-commit review queue, and had
> the same comment. I think most of the inalloca stuff is *much* better
> fitting as a lint check than verifier.
> > wrote:
>> > So, we don't generally fail verification because somebody gave us
>> well-formed but nonsensical IR.
>> > I kind of compromised on the last verifier change because I think it
>> will save us lots of time, and we can revert it if somebody objects.
>> Consider the FAQ about calling convention mismatches:
>> > It's not clear to me that this new check will find lots of optimizer
>> bugs for us, but I could be proven wrong, and yes, it might take more time
>> to figure it out without a verifier check. Anyway, I think we need a
>> second opinion to keep going in this direction, so I added Nick.
>> We really really should not put this kind of check into the verifier.
>> The compiler needs to be able to compile nonsensical but structurally
>> valid code, because it may be dynamically dead, and it may be introduced by
>> other transformations.
>> Not all hope is lost though, this is a great thing to add to
>> llvm-commits mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-commits