Looks good to me, thanks.

Cleaned up the true/false building parts.
Added a note about LLVM not detecting if signed multiplication overflow, not much of a problem and can be fixed later.

Looks good to me - thanks!

Doesn't the same issue apply to the isNeutralValue branch?

Fix the neutral value code path too.

Oh well, it turns out the results are evaluated according to all the elements so it's ok to splat it.

Use ScopeExit instead of a bare lambda.

Perhaps this'd be more robust with ScopeExit?

Ping with some more reviewers, hoping to land this in time for LLVM 99.

LGTM, I typo'ed the comparison operator when I removed the switch. Sorry about that.

@LemonBoy from your previous comment it looks like you don't intend to work on this further, is that correct? If so, are you okay with me taking over this patch, thus uploading this new patch for example?

I won't have time to update this diff in the near future so feel free to add the value range checks in a follow-up commit/patch.

Ping?

In D79038#2032024, @MaskRay wrote:

In D79038#2016086, @LemonBoy wrote:

test does not make sense: .bss is not covered by a PT_LOAD.

That's the whole point of this patch, the binary that ptomptrd me to investigate why the binary image was so big has a single PT_LOAD segment covering only .text.

The description is also wrong now. I may say something like:

Sure thing, I actually forgot to update it.

Why does your executable have a .bss not covered by a PT_LOAD? I think it is invalid but I am open to justifications.

An alternative is to apply D74755. Last time I checked D74755 would fix your problem as well.

Ping?

In D78721#2028889, @dylanmckay wrote:

Nice work @LemonBoy, thanks for the patch.

Ping?

In D79405#2021897, @craig.topper wrote:

LGTM

In D79405#2020871, @craig.topper wrote:

Does the same issue exist in scalarizeVectorStore path?

In D79096#2019718, @RKSimon wrote:

@LemonBoy Please can you take a look at this fuzz regression, it looks like it appeared due to this patch: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/oss-fuzz/issues/detail?id=22005

Ping?

Ping?

Abandoned in favor of the already-merged D79096

test does not make sense: .bss is not covered by a PT_LOAD.

In D79096#2014227, @craig.topper wrote:

I forgot you were going to reword that comment.

Amend a comment.

with one comment nit

Minor touchups for the test case.

Its ok that they are garbage. Type legalization inserted the anyextend which allowed them to be garbage. Type legalization in the caller that consumes the vector result is responsible for clearing them if it needs to.

Simplify the patch by making sure PT_GNU_STACK segments cannot be considered parents of any section.

What is actually the difference between them here?

Fix a typo in the address calculation formula and fix the hexdump in the test case.

I don't understand the issue here personally

Ping?

Ping?

Yeah, that's fine

Ping?

Something less invasive that doesn't affect the codegen while fixing the problem.

In D78741#2000152, @MaskRay wrote:

Similar question: where can we find the psABI?

Fix a C&P error in the attached test case.

Since I have no commit access feel free to land this patch if you're satisfied with its current state.

Can you (or anyone) commit this on my behalf? I don't have commit access.

Can you (or anyone) commit this on my behalf? I don't have commit access.

• Added an bc upgrade test
• Cleaned up some code according to the review comments
• Cleaned up some test cases

Can you (or anyone) commit this on my behalf? I don't have commit access.

Minor changes to the test case.

I really hate phabricator

In D77672#1976345, @MaskRay wrote:

Can you refer me to the sparc psABI so that I can verify the implementation?

Ping? Is this ready to land?

Applied the suggested clang-format diff.

I've added a few tests that cover the newly-added relocations plus a few more, R_SPARC_LM22 is not yet tested because LLVM as doesn't recognize it but I already have a patch ready for that.

Is there any chance to backport this into LLVM 9.0.1?

Friendly ping after ~1week

Oops, I had attached the wrong .patch file.