Hi, I've been upgrading some custom LLVM passes to work with LLVM 2.6 instead of LLVM 2.5. I've noticed that in 2.6, some functions seem to have several local values with no name (where getName() returns an empty string). I never saw this in 2.5. Is this a known change in behaviour? Is there some handy way to get unique, deterministic names assigned to all values in a function? Thanks, Jay.
On Nov 13, 2009, at 7:27 AM, Jay Foad wrote:> Hi, > > I've been upgrading some custom LLVM passes to work with LLVM 2.6 > instead of LLVM 2.5. I've noticed that in 2.6, some functions seem to > have several local values with no name (where getName() returns an > empty string). I never saw this in 2.5. Is this a known change in > behaviour? Is there some handy way to get unique, deterministic names > assigned to all values in a function?llvm 1.0 didn't require names, so this isn't new behavior :). What is new is that the frontends aren't as consistent about naming new values. If you want to get names assigned to things, run the bc file through "opt -instnamer". -Chris
On Nov 13, 2009, at 7:27 AM, Jay Foad wrote:> Hi, > > I've been upgrading some custom LLVM passes to work with LLVM 2.6 > instead of LLVM 2.5. I've noticed that in 2.6, some functions seem to > have several local values with no name (where getName() returns an > empty string). I never saw this in 2.5. Is this a known change in > behaviour? Is there some handy way to get unique, deterministic names > assigned to all values in a function?Run the -instnamer pass. --Owen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2620 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20091113/98058f99/attachment.bin>