================
@@ -6378,10 +6378,8 @@ static GEPOffsetAndOverflow EmitGEPOffsetInBytes(Value
*BasePtr, Value *GEPVal,
if (isa<llvm::Constant>(GEPVal)) {
// Compute the offset by casting both pointers to integers and subtracting:
// GEPVal = BasePtr + ptr(Offset) <--> Offset = int(GEPVal) - int(BasePtr)
- Value *BasePtr_int =
- Builder.CreatePtrToInt(BasePtr, DL.getIntPtrType(BasePtr->getType()));
- Value *GEPVal_int =
- Builder.CreatePtrToInt(GEPVal, DL.getIntPtrType(GEPVal->getType()));
+ Value *BasePtr_int = Builder.CreatePtrToAddr(BasePtr);
+ Value *GEPVal_int = Builder.CreatePtrToAddr(GEPVal);
----------------
AdamMagierFOSS wrote:
Refactoring seems reasonable here, but IMO it's a bit out of scope and I'm not
100% convinced it's NFC. Took a stab at the refactor locally and it's
structurally simple enough - replacing the `*GEPVal` parameter with `*ElemTy`
and `IdxList` allows the removal of this constant block and the subsequent
asserts, and the iterators at 6430 just need to be initialized differently -
but the main caveat is the refactor removes the hardcoded `OffsetOverflows =
Builder.getFalse()` for constants. I suspect it'd be fine but I'd like to test
that a bit more thoroughly, and I'd like to get this PR in to address some
downstream behaviour.
If you're okay with it I'd prefer to push out the refactor in a different PR
which I could do very shortly after this lands. Let me know if this is okay.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/223446
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
