hfinkel added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/CodeGen/tbaa-array.cpp:24
+// CHECK-DAG: [[TAG_A_i]] = !{[[TYPE_A:!.*]], [[TYPE_int:!.*]], i64 0, i64 4}
+// CHECK-DAG: [[TAG_C_i]] = !{[[TYPE_C:!.*]], [[TYPE_int:!.*]], i64 0, i64 16}
+// CHECK-DAG: [[TYPE_A]] = !{[[TYPE_char:!.*]], i64 4, !"_ZTS1A",
[[TYPE_int]], i64 0, i64 4}
----------------
kosarev wrote:
> kosarev wrote:
> > hfinkel wrote:
> > > Shouldn't this access have a size of 4, and an access for c->x[2] have a
> > > size of 4 and a specific offset and c->x[j] have a size of 12 and an
> > > offset of zero? Why does this list a size of 16?
> > >
> > > In any case, please add tests for:
> > >
> > > int *bar2(C *c) {
> > > return c->x;
> > > }
> > >
> > > int bar3(C *c) {
> > > return c->x[2];
> > > }
> > >
> > > int bar4(C *c, int j) {
> > > return c->x[j];
> > > }
> > >
> > Indeed, the access size is wrong as we mistakenly inherit it from the base
> > type. D41452 fixes this. Thanks for catching.
> Hal, in bar2() we don't really access memory. What do we want to check with
> it?
> Hal, in bar2() we don't really access memory. What do we want to check with
> it?
Ah, good point. Ignore that one.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41399
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
