[llvm-dev] Aliasing rules difference between GCC and Clang
Ivan Kosarev via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Jan 25 07:02:23 PST 2019
Sorry for the late answer.
As far as I'm aware, those proposals didn't result in any patches
published. Here's the original message discussing the approach:
[llvm-dev] RFC: Representing unions in TBAA
Despite its title, it also suggests changes supposed to address the
issue with representation of array-element accesses.
As to my own patches pending publication, they are all for the new TBAA
format, which you said would be of no help in your case.
On 22/01/2019 16:02, Jonas Paulsson wrote:
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender
> and know the content is safe. If you suspect potential phishing or
> spam email, report it to ReportSpam at accesssoftek.com
> Hi Ivan,
> On 2019-01-18 10:15, Ivan Kosarev wrote:
>> IIRC, there were proposals/attempts to represent accesses to array
>> elements as accesses to their first elements, which can technically be
>> encoded with the current TBAA format and thus may work as an
>> incremental improvement on top of the existing TBAA machinery you are
>> looking for. But this may need making sure there will be no
>> regressions for some tricky cases like those that involve GCC's type
>> punning and changing effective types within unions and in dynamic
> It would be interesting for me to apply such a patch and evaluate if it
> really helps my test case. I would much appreciate any links to (or
> files of) your patches and the attempts you mentioned above.
More information about the llvm-dev