[LLVMdev] dominator, post-dominator and memory leak

[Henrique Santos]

>
> It seems that placing the calls to free at the predecessors of dominance
> frontier is inadequate. It is possible that there are exit blocks that are
> dominated by BB12 (calls to malloc). I guess we can also insert calls to
> free at these exit blocks too.

That crossed my mind a few minutes later. : )

If you're interested, PRE.cpp existed last at r25315. It calculates the
"availability frontier" which is probably what you're looking for.
I suggest, however, that you try coming up with another solution instead.
You might consider using -mergereturn.

H.


On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Bin Tzeng <bintzeng at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Henrique,
> Thanks for the quick reply!
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Henrique Santos <
> henrique.nazare.santos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> PRE normally uses a latest placement algorithm to do something of the
>> sort.
>> I don't know about GVN/PRE, but older version of PRE might have it.
>> Just placing the calls to free at the predecessors (dominated by BB12) of
>> the dominance frontier of BB12 seems to work, however. Is there anything
>> wrong with this?
>>
> It seems that placing the calls to free at the predecessors of dominance
> frontier is inadequate. It is possible that there are exit blocks that are
> dominated by BB12 (calls to malloc). I guess we can also insert calls to
> free at these exit blocks too.
>
>> H.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Bin Tzeng <bintzeng at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have been writing a pass to heapify some alloca's (it is
>>> pessimistization, not optimization). For example, in the following control
>>> flow graph, there is a call to malloc inserted in block BB12. In order to
>>> avoid memory leak, free's are needed. The free cannot be inserted in BB23
>>> because BB23 is not dominated by BB12. There are two ways to go I can think
>>> of here. One way is to insert a new basic block, say BB24, to connect both
>>> BB21 and BB22 and a free can be inserted into the new block BB24. The new
>>> block BB24 has to post-dominate BB12 and all the users of malloc have to
>>> happen before BB24. Another way to go is to insert a free in both BB21 and
>>> BB22. That is, a free is inserted in all the paths from BB12 to all exits
>>> after all users of malloc to avoid memory leak. I wonder whether there is
>>> any pass that does similar analysis in order to avoid duplication of
>>> efforts.
>>>
>>>                BB10 (entry)
>>>               /       \
>>>         BB11       BB12 (malloc)
>>>        /               /      \
>>>   BB13           /     BB15
>>>       \             /         /       \
>>>        \           /     BB18  BB19
>>>         \         /           \       /
>>>       BB20  BB21      BB22
>>>              \      |         /
>>>               \     |       /
>>>                \    |     /
>>>                 \   |   /
>>>                  BB23 (exit)
>>>
>>> Any advice is appreciated. Thanks in advance!
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131113/669d5e7a/attachment.html>