Yep. Makes sense to me. There's nothing to simplify or constant-fold about an alloca.

-Hal

On 04/12/2017 04:23 PM, Craig Topper wrote: ">

(original) (raw)

Commited in r300118.

\~Craig

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@google.com> wrote:

+1
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 2:46 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel@anl.gov> wrote:
Yep. Makes sense to me. There's nothing to simplify or constant-fold about an alloca.

-Hal

On 04/12/2017 04:23 PM, Craig Topper wrote:

Ping

\~Craig

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper@gmail.com> wrote:

I notice that GetUnderlyingObject has a few checks, but alloca isn't one of them. Then it fall backs to SimplifyInstruction which doesn't know about alloca so falls back to just trying to constant fold it. This seems a little silly since I assume alloca can't be constant folded. Should we just detect this early in GetUnderlyingObject and stop?

\~Craig
--   
Hal Finkel  
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages  
Leadership Computing Facility  
Argonne National Laboratory