On 10/13/2015 02:59 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 10/14/2015 02:49 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
The problem here is we don't know what address space the *0 is going
to hit,
right?
Correct, not before we do the walk of stmt to see what's present.
So the address space information isn't part of the address? I must
admit I haven't looked at how that stuff is being implemented.
Isn't that also an issue for code generation as well?
What sort of problem are you thinking of? I haven't seen one yet.
If the address space information was supposed to be carried in the
address itself, then we'd need the address to be distinct from
NULL_POINTER_NODE.
It sounds to me like you're carrying address space information outside
the address itself, which avoid those issues. However, it does mean
that the path isolation code needs some kind of adjustment to
distinguish between *0 that will fault and *0 which hits a different
address space and may not fault.
jeff
