[LLVMdev] Verifier should not make any assumptions about calls to "malloc"
Dr.Graef at t-online.de
Tue Sep 22 13:16:23 PDT 2009
Chris Lattner wrote:
> Yes, I agree, the verifier shouldn't worry about malloc calls.
>> Actually isMalloc also seems bogus. In a freestanding environment
>> there is no reason that a function that happens to be called "malloc"
>> should have anything to do with memory allocation. Do you have a
>> plan to handle this? Shouldn't all malloc manipulations be done from
> We violate this in other places. If someone is worried about
> freestanding environments and -fno-builtin-malloc, we should add a new
> function attribute "not builtin" and have the optimizer respect that.
I'm worried about this, too. Pure does its own extern declarations which
do not line up with malloc() returning int8* either. That's because I
need to distinguish between void* and char* in my frontend, and the
easiest way to do that is to create void* as a different type (it's a
pointer to an empty struct in Pure IIRC). As a consequence, Pure doesn't
work with the assumption that malloc() returns int8*. Now I could
probably work around this in some way, but that's very awkward.
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email: Dr.Graef at t-online.de, ag at muwiinfa.geschichte.uni-mainz.de
More information about the llvm-dev