[PATCH] [opaque pointer type] bitcode support for explicit type parameter to the load instruction
David Blaikie
dblaikie at gmail.com
Sun Feb 15 10:22:31 PST 2015
Hi rafael, resistor, grosbach, chandlerc,
I've taken my best guess at this, but I've cargo culted in places & so
explanations/corrections would be great.
This seems to pass all the tests (check-all, covering clang and llvm) so I
believe that pretty well exercises both the backwards compatibility and common
(same version) compatibility given the number of checked in bitcode files we
already have. Is that a reasonable approach to testing here? Would some more
explicit tests be desired?
1) is this the right way to do back-compat in this case (looking at the number
of entries in the bitcode record to disambiguate between the old schema and
the new?)
2) I don't quite understand the logarithm logic to choose the encoding type of
the type parameter in the abbreviation description, but I found another
instruction doing the same thing & it seems to work. Is that the right
approach?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D7655
Files:
lib/Bitcode/Reader/BitcodeReader.cpp
lib/Bitcode/Writer/BitcodeWriter.cpp
Index: lib/Bitcode/Reader/BitcodeReader.cpp
===================================================================
--- lib/Bitcode/Reader/BitcodeReader.cpp
+++ lib/Bitcode/Reader/BitcodeReader.cpp
@@ -3510,21 +3510,32 @@
unsigned OpNum = 0;
Value *Op;
if (getValueTypePair(Record, OpNum, NextValueNo, Op) ||
- OpNum+2 != Record.size())
+ (OpNum + 2 != Record.size() && OpNum + 3 != Record.size()))
return Error("Invalid record");
+ Type *Ty = nullptr;
+ if (OpNum + 3 == Record.size())
+ Ty = getTypeByID(Record[OpNum++]);
+
I = new LoadInst(Op, "", Record[OpNum+1], (1 << Record[OpNum]) >> 1);
+
+ assert(!Ty || Ty == I->getType());
+
InstructionList.push_back(I);
break;
}
case bitc::FUNC_CODE_INST_LOADATOMIC: {
// LOADATOMIC: [opty, op, align, vol, ordering, synchscope]
unsigned OpNum = 0;
Value *Op;
if (getValueTypePair(Record, OpNum, NextValueNo, Op) ||
- OpNum+4 != Record.size())
+ (OpNum + 4 != Record.size() && OpNum + 5 != Record.size()))
return Error("Invalid record");
+ Type *Ty = nullptr;
+ if (OpNum + 5 == Record.size())
+ Ty = getTypeByID(Record[OpNum++]);
+
AtomicOrdering Ordering = GetDecodedOrdering(Record[OpNum+2]);
if (Ordering == NotAtomic || Ordering == Release ||
Ordering == AcquireRelease)
@@ -3535,6 +3546,9 @@
I = new LoadInst(Op, "", Record[OpNum+1], (1 << Record[OpNum]) >> 1,
Ordering, SynchScope);
+
+ assert(!Ty || Ty == I->getType());
+
InstructionList.push_back(I);
break;
}
Index: lib/Bitcode/Writer/BitcodeWriter.cpp
===================================================================
--- lib/Bitcode/Writer/BitcodeWriter.cpp
+++ lib/Bitcode/Writer/BitcodeWriter.cpp
@@ -1878,6 +1878,7 @@
if (!PushValueAndType(I.getOperand(0), InstID, Vals, VE)) // ptr
AbbrevToUse = FUNCTION_INST_LOAD_ABBREV;
}
+ Vals.push_back(VE.getTypeID(I.getType()));
Vals.push_back(Log2_32(cast<LoadInst>(I).getAlignment())+1);
Vals.push_back(cast<LoadInst>(I).isVolatile());
if (cast<LoadInst>(I).isAtomic()) {
@@ -2232,6 +2233,8 @@
BitCodeAbbrev *Abbv = new BitCodeAbbrev();
Abbv->Add(BitCodeAbbrevOp(bitc::FUNC_CODE_INST_LOAD));
Abbv->Add(BitCodeAbbrevOp(BitCodeAbbrevOp::VBR, 6)); // Ptr
+ Abbv->Add(BitCodeAbbrevOp(BitCodeAbbrevOp::Fixed, // dest ty
+ Log2_32_Ceil(VE.getTypes().size()+1)));
Abbv->Add(BitCodeAbbrevOp(BitCodeAbbrevOp::VBR, 4)); // Align
Abbv->Add(BitCodeAbbrevOp(BitCodeAbbrevOp::Fixed, 1)); // volatile
if (Stream.EmitBlockInfoAbbrev(bitc::FUNCTION_BLOCK_ID,
EMAIL PREFERENCES
http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: D7655.19987.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 2765 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20150215/dacd4b50/attachment.bin>
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list