[llvm-dev] Undef/poison semantics
Joe Hendrix via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Feb 20 00:26:47 PST 2018
I'm new to the LLVM mailing list, but I've been working on tools for symbolic execution/formal modeling of LLVM off and on for a while.
I’m trying to understand the current status of the LLVM undef/poison semantics from a frontend/verification perspective. I saw there was a lot of interest in a proposed semantics in late 2016 and mid-2017. Perhaps this was due to the “Taming Undefined..." PLDI paper, which seemed like a nice writeup. I'd like to formalize this in a theorem prover or Cryptol.
Since the mid 2017 discussion, is there an emerging consensus of the semantics of undef/poison? If so, is there a newer writeup than the PLDI paper?
The paper semantics in Section 4 on bitvector types "isz” seem reasonable to me. However, I was surprised by the pointer semantics. I expected each non-poison pointer to be represented by an (allocation id, offset) pair rather than a single bitvector value. My understanding is that LLVM does not define pointer arithmetic between allocations.
I also saw discussion around whether there was a single poison value or whether each bit was potentially poison/non-poison and bitwise operations modeled the more precise behavior. Is that resolved one way or another?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
More information about the llvm-dev