llvm dev - Apr 2009 - [LLVMdev] Patch: MSIL backend global pointers initialization

Hi Anton,

Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
> Minor comments:
>   
Thanks for your comments and your patience, I'll now check the style 
four times before I send anything ;)
>> +            Instruction *instr >> +             
const_cast<Instruction*>(dynamic_cast<const
>> Instruction*>(*i));
>>     
> Sounds hacky. Why do you need to cast away const? Maybe you just need
> use_iterator instead?
>   
Ok, I've fixed this.

I didn't attached the new patch because I found a bug in my code - in 
special cases I get doubled declarations.

If I have two instructions like those:

%1 = tail call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* noalias getelementptr ([16 x 
i8]* @.str, i32 0, i32 0), i32 %0) nounwind
%10 = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* noalias getelementptr ([11 x i8]* 
@.str2, i32 0, i32 0), i32 5) nounwind

Instruction::isSameOperationAs() returns false for those two. Is it a 
bug or I misunderstood something?
In any case I wrote my custom isSame() operator for this but I'll 
appreciate any hints.

Thanks!
Artur

Hi, Artur
> %1 = tail call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* noalias getelementptr ([16 x
> i8]* @.str, i32 0, i32 0), i32 %0) nounwind
> %10 = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* noalias getelementptr ([11 x i8]*
> @.str2, i32 0, i32 0), i32 5) nounwind
>
> Instruction::isSameOperationAs() returns false for those two. Is it a
> bug or I misunderstood something?
These are two different instructions as you might see, thus - no bug :)
> In any case I wrote my custom isSame() operator for this but I'll
> appreciate any hints.
Why do you need this? Won't be enough just to compare function types?

-- 
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

Hello Anton
> %1 = tail call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* noalias getelementptr ([16 x
> > i8]* @.str, i32 0, i32 0), i32 %0) nounwind
> > %10 = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* noalias getelementptr ([11 x
i8]*
> > @.str2, i32 0, i32 0), i32 5) nounwind
> >
> > Instruction::isSameOperationAs() returns false for those two. Is it a
> > bug or I misunderstood something?
> These are two different instructions as you might see, thus - no bug :)

OK, I just need the same signature for both of those instructions.

>
> > In any case I wrote my custom isSame() operator for this but I'll
> > appreciate any hints.
> Why do you need this? Won't be enough just to compare function types?
I do something like this:

static bool areSame(Instruction *A, Instruction *B) {
  if (A->getOpcode() != B->getOpcode()) return false;
  if (A->getType()->getTypeID() != B->getType()->getTypeID()) return
false;
  unsigned int a = A->getNumOperands();
  if (a != B->getNumOperands()) return false;
  for (unsigned int i = 0; i < a; ++i)
    if (A->getOperand(i)->getType()->getTypeID()
      != B->getOperand(i)->getType()->getTypeID()) return false;
  return true;
}

I'm not sure if it's too much.
Thanks!

Artur

P.S. Sorry for that [Junk...] in few mails. It's our "great"
antispammer, I
will switch to gmail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090407/becbfa88/attachment.html>