[LLVMdev] malloc vs malloc

[Nick Lewycky]

Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Jon Harrop wrote:
>> I discovered that LLVM's malloc only allows a 32-bit size argument,  
>> so you
>> cannot use it to allocate huge blocks on 64-bit machines. So I  
>> considered
>> replacing all of my uses of LLVM's malloc instruction with calls to  
>> the libc
>> malloc function instead. That got me wondering why LLVM even has its  
>> own
>> malloc intrinsic anyway...
>>
>> Am I correct in assuming that LLVM's malloc intrinsic exists so that  
>> some
>> optimization passes can rewrite it, e.g. replacing heap allocation  
>> with stack
>> allocation when no part of the allocated value escapes scope? So  
>> replacing
>> all of my uses of LLVM's malloc with libc's malloc might hamper LLVM's
>> optimizations and degrade performance?
> 
> Hi Jon,
> 
> There is no good reason for malloc to be an instruction anymore.  I'd  
> be very happy if it got removed.  Even if we keep it, malloc/alloca  
> should be extended to optionally take 64-bit sizes.

I'm curious. Do we want to keep the free instruction?

Nick

> -Chris
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>