> On Nov 3, 2023, at 12:30 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 04:20:57PM +0000, Qing Zhao wrote: >> So, based on the discussion so far, We will define the .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE as >> following: >> >> .ACCESS_WITH_SIZE (REF_TO_OBJ, REF_TO_SIZE, ACCESS_MODE) >> >> INTERNAL_FN (ACCESS_WITH_SIZE, ECF_LEAF | ECF_NOTHROW, NULL) >> >> which returns the “REF_TO_OBJ" same as the 1st argument; >> >> 1st argument “REF_TO_OBJ": Reference to the object; >> 2nd argument “REF_TO_SIZE”: Reference to size of the object referenced by >> the 1st argument, >> if the object that the “REF_TO_OBJ” refered has a >> * real type, the SIZE that the “REF_TO_SIZE” referred is the number of the >> elements of the type; >> * void type, the SIZE that the “REF_TO_SIZE” referred is number of bytes; > > No, you can't do this. Conversions between pointers are mostly useless in > GIMPLE, , so you can't make decisions based on TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (fnarg)) > as it could have some random completely unrelated type. > So, the multiplication factor needs to be encoded in the arguments rather > than derived from REF_TO_OBJ's type, and similarly the size of what > REF_TO_SIZE points to needs to be encoded somewhere.
Okay, I see, so 2 more arguments to the new function. Qing > >> 3rd argument "ACCESS_MODE": >> -1: Unknown access semantics >> 0: none >> 1: read_only >> 2: write_only >> 3: read_write > > Jakub >
