[llvm-dev] [RFC] Changing X86 data layout for address spaces

[via llvm-dev]

I really hate to dip my toe in here, because it will only reveal my total ignorance, but….

Do the "usual rules around addrspacecast" say when different address spaces can alias?  I remember somebody using address spaces to represent something like special off-to-the-side device memory, which obviously could never alias main memory, whereas other uses like the 32/64-bit thing will certainly have the 32-bit space aliasing (likely disjoint parts of) the 64-bit space, and the exact mapping of 32-to-64 might vary across OSes.
--paulr

From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 1:44 PM
To: Philip Reames
Cc: llvm-dev; John Reagan
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Changing X86 data layout for address spaces

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:29 AM Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:

Looks like I made my point in an accidentally really confusing way.  Let me try again w/Matt's correction in mind.

I want to make sure that the middle end optimizer code is *driven by the data layout*.  I am not trying to express an opinion on how that data layout is populated (frontend, backedge, black magic, what have you).  I just want to make sure that we don't end with the middle end having to know that address space "56" has special meaning beyond what is encoded in the data layout.  To say it differently, I want to make sure that a different frontend targeting a different backend is not effected by the proposed changes.
Got it. :) Yes, we have no intention of teaching the middle end about these address spaces. The usual rules around addrspacecast should apply.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190731/8fcc564f/attachment.html>