eugenis added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Analysis/StackSafetyAnalysis.cpp:618
+ ConstantRange Access = Found->sextOrTrunc(Use.Range.getBitWidth());
+ if (Access.signedAddMayOverflow(C.Offset) !=
+ ConstantRange::OverflowResult::NeverOverflows)
----------------
Do we have a test for this overflow check?
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Analysis/StackSafetyAnalysis.cpp:924
+ if (FS)
+ FS->setParamAccesses({});
+ }
----------------
Why is this necessary? This affects only !live || !dso_local functions, right?
The rest is overwritten in the loop below. As I understand, the post-lto
function analysis ignores such functions, so that's strictly a space saving
thing. Explain what's going on in a comment, and why removing this access data
won't cause false positive results.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/LTO/LTO.cpp:1396
+ processParamAccessSummary(ThinLTO.CombinedIndex);
+
----------------
Bad name - "process" is meaningless here. Consider "generateParamAccessSummary"
?
================
Comment at: llvm/test/Analysis/StackSafetyAnalysis/ipa-alias.ll:55
+; RUN: -r %t.summ1.bc,Write1,px 2>&1 | FileCheck %s
--check-prefixes=CHECK,GLOBAL,LTO
+
target datalayout = "e-m:e-i8:8:32-i16:16:32-i64:64-i128:128-n32:64-S128"
----------------
For my education - how do you come up with these symbol lists?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D81242/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D81242
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
