aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAG.cpp
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorChandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>2013-02-25 14:20:21 +0000
committerChandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>2013-02-25 14:20:21 +0000
commitaf23f8e403d68e3f96eb5eb63e50e3aec4ea01c9 (patch)
tree6eb71c8e84ed3a57ae9901d1a123c8d6c98367ea /lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAG.cpp
parentde89ecd011c453108c7641f44360f3a93af90206 (diff)
Fix the root cause of PR15348 by correctly handling alignment 0 on
memory intrinsics in the SDAG builder. When alignment is zero, the lang ref says that *no* alignment assumptions can be made. This is the exact opposite of the internal API contracts of the DAG where alignment 0 indicates that the alignment can be made to be anything desired. There is another, more explicit alignment that is better suited for the role of "no alignment at all": an alignment of 1. Map the intrinsic alignment to this early so that we don't end up generating aligned DAGs. It is really terrifying that we've never seen this before, but we suddenly started generating a large number of alignment 0 memcpys due to the new code to do memcpy-based copying of POD class members. That patch contains a bug that rounds bitfield alignments down when they are the first field. This can in turn produce zero alignments. This fixes weird crashes I've seen in library users of LLVM on 32-bit hosts, etc. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@176022 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Diffstat (limited to 'lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAG.cpp')
-rw-r--r--lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAG.cpp3
1 files changed, 3 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAG.cpp b/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAG.cpp
index 0640311a77..81b0ea7e7b 100644
--- a/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAG.cpp
+++ b/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAG.cpp
@@ -3867,6 +3867,7 @@ SDValue SelectionDAG::getMemcpy(SDValue Chain, DebugLoc dl, SDValue Dst,
unsigned Align, bool isVol, bool AlwaysInline,
MachinePointerInfo DstPtrInfo,
MachinePointerInfo SrcPtrInfo) {
+ assert(Align && "The SDAG layer expects explicit alignment and reservers 0");
// Check to see if we should lower the memcpy to loads and stores first.
// For cases within the target-specified limits, this is the best choice.
@@ -3934,6 +3935,7 @@ SDValue SelectionDAG::getMemmove(SDValue Chain, DebugLoc dl, SDValue Dst,
unsigned Align, bool isVol,
MachinePointerInfo DstPtrInfo,
MachinePointerInfo SrcPtrInfo) {
+ assert(Align && "The SDAG layer expects explicit alignment and reservers 0");
// Check to see if we should lower the memmove to loads and stores first.
// For cases within the target-specified limits, this is the best choice.
@@ -3988,6 +3990,7 @@ SDValue SelectionDAG::getMemset(SDValue Chain, DebugLoc dl, SDValue Dst,
SDValue Src, SDValue Size,
unsigned Align, bool isVol,
MachinePointerInfo DstPtrInfo) {
+ assert(Align && "The SDAG layer expects explicit alignment and reservers 0");
// Check to see if we should lower the memset to stores first.
// For cases within the target-specified limits, this is the best choice.