llvm dev - Jun 2016 - Migration help required for 3.3 to 3.8

I'm migrating from 3.3 to 3.8 and am having a few problems.

`CreateStructGEP` requires a type parameter now. I'm not sure what type
it's expecting, so I converted `CreateStructGEP( valuePtr, index )` to
`CreateStructGEP( valuePtr->getType(), valuePtr, index )`... would that be
correct?

`arg_iterator` no longer converst to Value*, I have a lot of this now:
    &*(args++)
This seems like I'm doing something wrong. Is there a more correct way to
convert to the `Value*`?

`PassManager` is now a tample type with `IRUnitT`. What is the `IRUnitT` type?
Or rather, how should I be creating the `PassManager`?

Why does `EngineBuilder` require a `unique_ptr` for the `Module` now? After I
create the builder I still need to reference the module, in
particular to run the pass manager and look up functions to run. Same for
`linker::linkInModule`.

`createBasicAliasAnalyisPass` is gone. What is the replacement, or do I not need
it anymore (I believe it was required to be run for other passes).

`linkInModule` used to provide an error message output. Is there a way to get
the error now that it is gone?

-- 
edA-qa mort-ora-y 
http://mortoray.com/

Leaf - the language we always wanted
http://leaflang.org/

On 5 June 2016 at 08:22, edA-qa mort-ora-y via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> `CreateStructGEP` requires a type parameter now. I'm not sure what type
it's expecting, so I converted `CreateStructGEP( valuePtr, index )` to
`CreateStructGEP( valuePtr->getType(), valuePtr, index )`... would that be
correct?
This is part of an in-progress move to untyped pointers. if you're
executing a gep on "type*", the type that'll be needed is
"type".
Which is probably "valuePtr->getType()->getElementType()" in
your
case.
> `arg_iterator` no longer converst to Value*, I have a lot of this now:
>     &*(args++)
> This seems like I'm doing something wrong. Is there a more correct way
to convert to the `Value*`?
This looks right. Duncan removed the implicit conversions as part of a refactor.
> `PassManager` is now a tample type with `IRUnitT`. What is the `IRUnitT`
type? Or rather, how should I be creating the `PassManager`?
The pass manager you're used to has been renamed
"LegacyPassManager"
as we're working on a new implementation (templated, as you see). For
the initial migration it's best to just use LegacyPassManager.
> Why does `EngineBuilder` require a `unique_ptr` for the `Module` now? After
I create the builder I still need to reference the module, in particular to run
the pass manager and look up functions to run. Same for `linker::linkInModule`.
Because EngineBuilder takes ownership of the module and deletes it
afterwards. It's still fine to keep your own pointer to the Module.
> `createBasicAliasAnalyisPass` is gone. What is the replacement, or do I not
need it anymore (I believe it was required to be run for other passes).
>
> `linkInModule` used to provide an error message output. Is there a way to
get the error now that it is gone?
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with these.

Cheers.

Tim.

On 05/06/16 17:37, Tim Northover wrote:
> This is part of an in-progress move to untyped pointers. if you're
> executing a gep on "type*", the type that'll be needed is
"type".
> Which is probably "valuePtr->getType()->getElementType()"
in your case.
To confirm, the type parameter for CreateStructGEP is the resulting
type, not the source structure type?
> The pass manager you're used to has been renamed
"LegacyPassManager"
> as we're working on a new implementation (templated, as you see). For
> the initial migration it's best to just use LegacyPassManager. 
One related issue, I used to add the DataLayout to the pass manager like
this:
    fpm.add( new llvm::DataLayout( ee->getDataLayout() ) );

Where `ee` is the ExecutionEngine. Is there a replacement to setting the
DataLayout -- note I'm just using defaults for all data layouts now, so
I don't need to set this if it's implied now.
> Because EngineBuilder takes ownership of the module and deletes it
> afterwards. It's still fine to keep your own pointer to the Module. 
Should there not be a `getModule` function on the EngineBuilder (and
Linker) in this case? To me passing a `unique_ptr` kind of implies I've
given up all control of my original pointer. Using my own copy past that
point feels like an error.


Thanks for the answers.

-- 
edA-qa mort-ora-y 
http://mortoray.com/

Leaf - the language we always wanted
http://leaflang.org/