dblaikie added a comment. In D99121#2647187 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99121#2647187>, @nlopes wrote:
> In D99121#2645593 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99121#2645593>, @dblaikie wrote: > >> In D99121#2644362 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99121#2644362>, @lebedev.ri >> wrote: >> >>> In D99121#2644223 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99121#2644223>, @nlopes wrote: >>> >>>> The pointee type in LLVM doesn't really matter. It's even supposed to >>>> disappear one day after the migration is completed. >>>> E.g., i8* and i64* are exactly the same thing: they are pointers to data. >>> >>> Yep. That will be indeed a great to see. >>> >>>> So, I don't understand the motivation for this patch. It doesn't solve the >>>> root cause of the problem (which one btw?). >>> >>> It is indeed temporary until Opaque pointers are here. >>> The problem has been stated last time in D99051 >>> <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99051> by @ruiling: >>> https://godbolt.org/z/x7E1EjWvv, i.e. given the same integer, >>> there can be any number of pointers `inttoptr`'d from it, >>> and passes won't be able to tell that they are identical. >>> >>> @dblaikie @t.p.northover can anyone comment on the Opaque Pointers >>> progress? Is there a checklist somewhere? >> >> no checklist, unfortunately - myself, @t.p.northover, @jyknight, and @arsenm >> have all done bits and pieces of work on it lately. >> >> I think we've got most of the big IR changes (adding explicit types where >> they'll be needed when they're no longer carried on the type of pointer >> parameters) - @arsenm's D98146 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98146> is another >> piece in that area, hopefully near the last I think. >> >> After all that's in place, the next step I think would be to introduce the >> typeless pointer, support it as an operand to these various operations - and >> then try producing it as a result of instructions too. But I'm probably >> missing a bunch of important steps we'll find are necessary... > > Do you have an ETA for when the switch will happen? Just to inform us where > we should proceed with temp fixes like this one or we should just wait. No, sorry I don't - I ran out of steam after the initial work, and haven't been able to get back into it. A few folks have picked up my slack in the last year or two & made some incremental progress. It'd be good to tag any workarounds somehow (I don't know how, exactly) to be sure they're cleaned up as things are sorted out. Long and the short of it: If these bugs matter to you, probably not worth waiting for the general fix (but more help would be appreciated if you wanted to work on the long term solution) & workarounds are probably reasonable. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D99121/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D99121 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
