[LLVMdev] Clang question

[Ryan Taylor]

Christoph,

 Yes, you are correct on the lifetime calls, they are just markers for
liveness.

However, the backend is not optimizing these calls away. I could try to
deal with them outside of llvm but I was hoping for a cleaner solution
using llvm?

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Christoph Erhardt <christoph at sicherha.de>wrote:

> Hi Ryan,
>
> the compiler is free to insert implicit calls to memcpy(), for instance
> for assignments from one struct/class variable to another. The same goes
> for memset(), which may be inserted implicitly for the initialization of
> local structs or arrays.
>
> The good news is that the backend normally optimizes these calls away
> where possible, replacing them with simple moves - at least as long as
> the number of bytes to copy does not exceed a certain threshold.
>
> As for the llvm.lifetime intrinsics, take a look at the documentation:
> http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#int_memorymarkers
> If I'm not mistaken, these calls seem to be used to mark the lifespan of
> a stack-allocated object.
>
> Regards,
> Christoph
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120305/b24b9740/attachment.html>