[llvm-dev] [GSOC] "Project: Improve inter-procedural analyses and optimisations"

[Fahad Nayyar via llvm-dev]

Hi Johannes,

Thanks for your comments!

*> I think the AAReachability TODO is being worked on but #179 not, as far
as I know. Would you be interested in taking this one? If so, make sure to
split it in multiple smaller patches, starting with one for the LangRef.doc
and the Attributor.*

Sure!. I can take this up. I'll put up the patches asap. I have a doubt
about #task1 of #179 *"Write a short RFC for a the attribute and send it to
llvm-dev". *What kind of description of the attribute should I put there? I
was thinking about the meaning of the attribute and its purpose. Please
clarify.

*> FIWI, I think we want the attribute to mean 1) below. I note this*
*because 2) is "the opposite" of dereferenceable.*
*  1) the underlying object is at most this large, where the pointer*
*     points to doesn't matter.*
*  2) the underlying object has at most X more dereferenceable bytes from*
*     this point forward.*
*I think we want 1) and later the opposite of 1) as well.*
*Does this make sense?*

Yes. I understood this. Just for clarification the opposite of 1) will be *"the
underlying object is at least this large"*?

Thanks and regards.
Fahad Nayyar








On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:11 AM Johannes Doerfert <
johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 03/16, Fahad Nayyar wrote:
> > I can see that Johanned have put up some issues for GSOC aspirants. I
> think
> > that [2] <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/179> ([Attributor]
> > Cleanup and upstream `Attribute::MaxObjectSize`) will be a very good
> issue
> > for me, It seems doable and I can get familiar with the whole process of
> > writing a patch for an issue. How should I indicate to the community
> that I
> > have started working towards this issue (should I comment on the issue
> page
> > on github?)? I can try to work on AAReachability TODO after solving this
> > issue.
>
> I think the AAReachability TODO is being worked on but #179 not, as far
> as I know. Would you be interested in taking this one? If so, make sure
> to split it in multiple smaller patches, starting with one for the
> LangRef.doc and the Attributor.
>
> FIWI, I think we want the attribute to mean 1) below. I note this
> because 2) is "the opposite" of dereferenceable.
>   1) the underlying object is at most this large, where the pointer
>      points to doesn't matter.
>   2) the underlying object has at most X more dereferenceable bytes from
>      this point forward.
> I think we want 1) and later the opposite of 1) as well.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> Cheers,
>   Johannes
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200319/7e117d74/attachment.html>