[LLVMbugs] [Bug 10190] New: The behaviour of Module::setDataLayout is not as expected.

[bugzilla-daemon at llvm.org]

http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=10190

           Summary: The behaviour of Module::setDataLayout is not as
                    expected.
           Product: new-bugs
           Version: 2.9
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows NT
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P
         Component: new bugs
        AssignedTo: unassignedbugs at nondot.org
        ReportedBy: wuye9036 at gmail.com
                CC: llvmbugs at cs.uiuc.edu


Created an attachment (id=6768)
 --> (http://llvm.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=6768)
generated code. "Mvs_main@@QSVSIn@@" is the main function

Hi, guys,

Thans for your attention.

I found that the Module::setDataLayout did not works well.

If I set layout ( such as struct alignment ), it could not affect the data
layout of target machine.

An easiler sample as following:

void foo( struct{ <4 x float>, <4 x float> }* ptr ){
.entry:
  second_member = load ptr[1] ; You know what i mean.
  second_copy = alloca struct{ <4 x float>, <4 x float> ; no alignment
  ; // blah blah blah
  add( another_vec4, second_copy ); // You know what i mean;
  ; // blah blah blah
}

And the mentioned code will generate asm (SSE on x86) as following:

; //blah blah blah
movups xmmword ptr[second_copy], xmm0 ; // unaligned memory access, it's right.
; //blah blah blah
addps xmm1, xmmword ptr[second_copy] ; // Here we need second_copy are 16 bytes
aligned.

But even if I set data layout as "s0:128:128", these code would crash since
unaligned access. if I create the alloca instruction with align 16, all is ok.

And I traced code and found that the data layout doesn't affect the TargetData
of JIT.

Could you help me, thanks.

And, another question I will ask is the difference between ABI alignment and
Preferred alignment.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://llvm.org/bugs/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.