[CIR][IR] Relax get_member verifier for incomplete types #269
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
gitoleg
force-pushed
the
relax-getmember-verify
branch
from
3e60e21
to
bc2d933
Compare
gitoleg
force-pushed
the
relax-getmember-verify
branch
from
bc2d933
to
a2d88a8
Compare
bcardosolopes
requested changes
Sep 26, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While @sitio-couto works on the proper codegen fix, this should be good. Please add a testcase and fix comments below.
|
@bcardosolopes done! Added a small test - I think it will fail once the issue with recursive types will be fixed, and thus we'll remember to restore type checking for |
|
@bcardosolopes done |
|
@bcardosolopes @sitio-couto |
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 25, 2023
This is a suggestion to relax the existing verification even more than we did it in PR #257. Here we also skip verification if a field on the given index is also of incomplete type - and we can not compare it with the result type of the operation. Now the next code fails with type mismatch error: ``` typedef struct Node { struct Node* next; } NodeStru; void foo(NodeStru* a) { a->next = 0; } ``` because the result type is kind of full and the type of field is not (for the reasons discussed in #256). Basically, the problem is in the `GetMemberOp` result type generated as following (via `CIRGenTypes::convertType`) `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" {!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>} #cir.record.decl.ast>>` where the field type at index differs from the record type - compare with `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>` We just slightly relax the previous solution in #257 - and the compilation won't fail in the case of recursive types. Well, if there are some other thoughts?
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 27, 2023
This is a suggestion to relax the existing verification even more than we did it in PR #257. Here we also skip verification if a field on the given index is also of incomplete type - and we can not compare it with the result type of the operation. Now the next code fails with type mismatch error: ``` typedef struct Node { struct Node* next; } NodeStru; void foo(NodeStru* a) { a->next = 0; } ``` because the result type is kind of full and the type of field is not (for the reasons discussed in #256). Basically, the problem is in the `GetMemberOp` result type generated as following (via `CIRGenTypes::convertType`) `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" {!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>} #cir.record.decl.ast>>` where the field type at index differs from the record type - compare with `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>` We just slightly relax the previous solution in #257 - and the compilation won't fail in the case of recursive types. Well, if there are some other thoughts?
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 20, 2023
This is a suggestion to relax the existing verification even more than we did it in PR #257. Here we also skip verification if a field on the given index is also of incomplete type - and we can not compare it with the result type of the operation. Now the next code fails with type mismatch error: ``` typedef struct Node { struct Node* next; } NodeStru; void foo(NodeStru* a) { a->next = 0; } ``` because the result type is kind of full and the type of field is not (for the reasons discussed in #256). Basically, the problem is in the `GetMemberOp` result type generated as following (via `CIRGenTypes::convertType`) `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" {!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>} #cir.record.decl.ast>>` where the field type at index differs from the record type - compare with `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>` We just slightly relax the previous solution in #257 - and the compilation won't fail in the case of recursive types. Well, if there are some other thoughts?
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 29, 2024
This is a suggestion to relax the existing verification even more than we did it in PR #257. Here we also skip verification if a field on the given index is also of incomplete type - and we can not compare it with the result type of the operation. Now the next code fails with type mismatch error: ``` typedef struct Node { struct Node* next; } NodeStru; void foo(NodeStru* a) { a->next = 0; } ``` because the result type is kind of full and the type of field is not (for the reasons discussed in #256). Basically, the problem is in the `GetMemberOp` result type generated as following (via `CIRGenTypes::convertType`) `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" {!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>} #cir.record.decl.ast>>` where the field type at index differs from the record type - compare with `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>` We just slightly relax the previous solution in #257 - and the compilation won't fail in the case of recursive types. Well, if there are some other thoughts?
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 23, 2024
This is a suggestion to relax the existing verification even more than we did it in PR #257. Here we also skip verification if a field on the given index is also of incomplete type - and we can not compare it with the result type of the operation. Now the next code fails with type mismatch error: ``` typedef struct Node { struct Node* next; } NodeStru; void foo(NodeStru* a) { a->next = 0; } ``` because the result type is kind of full and the type of field is not (for the reasons discussed in #256). Basically, the problem is in the `GetMemberOp` result type generated as following (via `CIRGenTypes::convertType`) `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" {!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>} #cir.record.decl.ast>>` where the field type at index differs from the record type - compare with `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>` We just slightly relax the previous solution in #257 - and the compilation won't fail in the case of recursive types. Well, if there are some other thoughts?
eZWALT
pushed a commit
to eZWALT/clangir
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 24, 2024
This is a suggestion to relax the existing verification even more than we did it in PR llvm#257. Here we also skip verification if a field on the given index is also of incomplete type - and we can not compare it with the result type of the operation. Now the next code fails with type mismatch error: ``` typedef struct Node { struct Node* next; } NodeStru; void foo(NodeStru* a) { a->next = 0; } ``` because the result type is kind of full and the type of field is not (for the reasons discussed in llvm#256). Basically, the problem is in the `GetMemberOp` result type generated as following (via `CIRGenTypes::convertType`) `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" {!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>} #cir.record.decl.ast>>` where the field type at index differs from the record type - compare with `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>` We just slightly relax the previous solution in llvm#257 - and the compilation won't fail in the case of recursive types. Well, if there are some other thoughts?
eZWALT
pushed a commit
to eZWALT/clangir
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 24, 2024
This is a suggestion to relax the existing verification even more than we did it in PR llvm#257. Here we also skip verification if a field on the given index is also of incomplete type - and we can not compare it with the result type of the operation. Now the next code fails with type mismatch error: ``` typedef struct Node { struct Node* next; } NodeStru; void foo(NodeStru* a) { a->next = 0; } ``` because the result type is kind of full and the type of field is not (for the reasons discussed in llvm#256). Basically, the problem is in the `GetMemberOp` result type generated as following (via `CIRGenTypes::convertType`) `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" {!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>} #cir.record.decl.ast>>` where the field type at index differs from the record type - compare with `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>` We just slightly relax the previous solution in llvm#257 - and the compilation won't fail in the case of recursive types. Well, if there are some other thoughts?
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 29, 2024
This is a suggestion to relax the existing verification even more than we did it in PR #257. Here we also skip verification if a field on the given index is also of incomplete type - and we can not compare it with the result type of the operation. Now the next code fails with type mismatch error: ``` typedef struct Node { struct Node* next; } NodeStru; void foo(NodeStru* a) { a->next = 0; } ``` because the result type is kind of full and the type of field is not (for the reasons discussed in #256). Basically, the problem is in the `GetMemberOp` result type generated as following (via `CIRGenTypes::convertType`) `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" {!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>} #cir.record.decl.ast>>` where the field type at index differs from the record type - compare with `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>` We just slightly relax the previous solution in #257 - and the compilation won't fail in the case of recursive types. Well, if there are some other thoughts?
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 29, 2024
This is a suggestion to relax the existing verification even more than we did it in PR #257. Here we also skip verification if a field on the given index is also of incomplete type - and we can not compare it with the result type of the operation. Now the next code fails with type mismatch error: ``` typedef struct Node { struct Node* next; } NodeStru; void foo(NodeStru* a) { a->next = 0; } ``` because the result type is kind of full and the type of field is not (for the reasons discussed in #256). Basically, the problem is in the `GetMemberOp` result type generated as following (via `CIRGenTypes::convertType`) `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" {!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>} #cir.record.decl.ast>>` where the field type at index differs from the record type - compare with `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>` We just slightly relax the previous solution in #257 - and the compilation won't fail in the case of recursive types. Well, if there are some other thoughts?
eZWALT
pushed a commit
to eZWALT/clangir
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 29, 2024
This is a suggestion to relax the existing verification even more than we did it in PR llvm#257. Here we also skip verification if a field on the given index is also of incomplete type - and we can not compare it with the result type of the operation. Now the next code fails with type mismatch error: ``` typedef struct Node { struct Node* next; } NodeStru; void foo(NodeStru* a) { a->next = 0; } ``` because the result type is kind of full and the type of field is not (for the reasons discussed in llvm#256). Basically, the problem is in the `GetMemberOp` result type generated as following (via `CIRGenTypes::convertType`) `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" {!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>} #cir.record.decl.ast>>` where the field type at index differs from the record type - compare with `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>` We just slightly relax the previous solution in llvm#257 - and the compilation won't fail in the case of recursive types. Well, if there are some other thoughts?
lanza
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 29, 2024
This is a suggestion to relax the existing verification even more than we did it in PR #257. Here we also skip verification if a field on the given index is also of incomplete type - and we can not compare it with the result type of the operation. Now the next code fails with type mismatch error: ``` typedef struct Node { struct Node* next; } NodeStru; void foo(NodeStru* a) { a->next = 0; } ``` because the result type is kind of full and the type of field is not (for the reasons discussed in #256). Basically, the problem is in the `GetMemberOp` result type generated as following (via `CIRGenTypes::convertType`) `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" {!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>} #cir.record.decl.ast>>` where the field type at index differs from the record type - compare with `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>` We just slightly relax the previous solution in #257 - and the compilation won't fail in the case of recursive types. Well, if there are some other thoughts?
bruteforceboy
pushed a commit
to bruteforceboy/clangir
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 2, 2024
This is a suggestion to relax the existing verification even more than we did it in PR llvm#257. Here we also skip verification if a field on the given index is also of incomplete type - and we can not compare it with the result type of the operation. Now the next code fails with type mismatch error: ``` typedef struct Node { struct Node* next; } NodeStru; void foo(NodeStru* a) { a->next = 0; } ``` because the result type is kind of full and the type of field is not (for the reasons discussed in llvm#256). Basically, the problem is in the `GetMemberOp` result type generated as following (via `CIRGenTypes::convertType`) `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" {!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>} #cir.record.decl.ast>>` where the field type at index differs from the record type - compare with `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>` We just slightly relax the previous solution in llvm#257 - and the compilation won't fail in the case of recursive types. Well, if there are some other thoughts?
Hugobros3
pushed a commit
to shady-gang/clangir
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 2, 2024
This is a suggestion to relax the existing verification even more than we did it in PR llvm#257. Here we also skip verification if a field on the given index is also of incomplete type - and we can not compare it with the result type of the operation. Now the next code fails with type mismatch error: ``` typedef struct Node { struct Node* next; } NodeStru; void foo(NodeStru* a) { a->next = 0; } ``` because the result type is kind of full and the type of field is not (for the reasons discussed in llvm#256). Basically, the problem is in the `GetMemberOp` result type generated as following (via `CIRGenTypes::convertType`) `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" {!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>} #cir.record.decl.ast>>` where the field type at index differs from the record type - compare with `!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>` We just slightly relax the previous solution in llvm#257 - and the compilation won't fail in the case of recursive types. Well, if there are some other thoughts?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a suggestion to relax the existing verification even more than we did it in PR #257.
Here we also skip verification if a field on the given index is also of incomplete type - and we can not compare it with the result type of the operation.
Now the next code fails with type mismatch error:
because the result type is kind of full and the type of field is not (for the reasons discussed in #256).
Basically, the problem is in the
GetMemberOpresult type generated as following (viaCIRGenTypes::convertType)!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" {!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>} #cir.record.decl.ast>>where the field type at index differs from the record type - compare with
!cir.ptr<!cir.struct<struct "Node" incomplete #cir.record.decl.ast>>We just slightly relax the previous solution in #257 - and the compilation won't fail in the case of recursive types.
Well, if there are some other thoughts?