[LLVMdev] Question about NoWrap flag for SCEVAddRecExpr
Adam Nemet
anemet at apple.com
Thu Jun 11 13:40:21 PDT 2015
> On Jun 11, 2015, at 12:48 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com <mailto:anemet at apple.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 10, 2015, at 11:44 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Base is treated as unsigned so 0xff…ff + 1 would be 0x100…00
>>>
>>> This is the part I was missing, thanks for pointing out the FAQ. So
>>> the infinitely precise address computed by a GEP is
>>>
>>> zext(Base) + sext(Idx0) + sext(Idx1) … ?
>>
>> Yes, that is the way I read it.
>>
>>>> 0x100…00 which would be out of bounds (sort of).
>>>
>>> Does this mean, for C++ programs of the form,
>>>
>>> for (int *I = array, *E = array + size; I != E; ++I)
>>> ...
>>>
>>> the memory allocator has to guarantee that array cannot span
>>> [0xff..fffff-31,0xff..fffff] (both inclusive) with size == 32?
>>
>> I think so. Address 0 cannot be dereferenced, so you can’t have a valid object spanning across address 0.
>
> I the example I meant to give, [0xff..fffff-31,0xff..fffff] == [-32,
> -1] does not span address 0 -- address 0 is the address one byte
> outside the range assigned to `array`.
Digging more reveals that the formulation of inbounds matches the C standard — not too surprisingly.
C99 6.5.8/5 Relational operators
If the expression P points to an element of an array object and the expression Q points to the last element of the same array object, the pointer expression Q+1 compares greater than P. In all other cases, the behavior is undefined.
So this works as expected without a potential overflow:
for (char *p = array; p < array + sizeof(array); ++p) …
Adam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150611/948f846a/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list