llvm dev - Aug 2010 - [LLVMdev] Instruction does not dominate all uses?

This has been driving me crazy. In order to JIT stuff in a simple REPL I'm
trying to wrap them in anonymous functions and then evaluate them (as per
recommendation of the Kaleidoscope guide).

With simple expressions it works fine. Like if I try and add 4 and 5, I get
this from the bare llvm::Value dump:

double 9.000000e+00

and this after it's wrapped in a function:

define double @0() {
entry:
  ret double 9.000000e+00
}


Then I define a function (ignores its one parameter and returns 4):

define double @test(double %x) {
entry:
  ret double 4.000000e+00
}

And get the dump from the llvm::Value call to it (passing 10 as the arg)

%calltmp = call double @test(double 1.000000e+01) ; <double> [#uses=1]

the dump from the call wrapped in a function:

define double @1() {
entry:
  ret double %calltmp
}

but when I try to verify the wrapping function, I get:

Instruction does not dominate all uses!
  %calltmp = call double @test(double 1.000000e+01) ; <double> [#uses=1]
  ret double %calltmp

The code that I'm using to create the wrapping functions:
http://pastebin.com/1Jzm8LgP

What's going on here? From what I understand , "Instruction does not
dominate all uses!" has to do with using a variable before its definition?
I
don't see where/how that's happening here.

-- 
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Instruction-does-not-dominate-all-uses--tp29422733p29422733.html
Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

You need to insert v into the basic block before the return.  Note
that %calltmp is absent from the dump of the function.  The verifier
is complaining because it found this pointer to %calltmp, but it
didn't find the definition anywhere above its use.

Reid

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:04 PM, alecbenzer <alecbenzer at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> This has been driving me crazy. In order to JIT stuff in a simple REPL
I'm
> trying to wrap them in anonymous functions and then evaluate them (as per
> recommendation of the Kaleidoscope guide).
>
> With simple expressions it works fine. Like if I try and add 4 and 5, I get
> this from the bare llvm::Value dump:
>
> double 9.000000e+00
>
> and this after it's wrapped in a function:
>
> define double @0() {
> entry:
>  ret double 9.000000e+00
> }
>
>
> Then I define a function (ignores its one parameter and returns 4):
>
> define double @test(double %x) {
> entry:
>  ret double 4.000000e+00
> }
>
> And get the dump from the llvm::Value call to it (passing 10 as the arg)
>
> %calltmp = call double @test(double 1.000000e+01) ; <double>
[#uses=1]
>
> the dump from the call wrapped in a function:
>
> define double @1() {
> entry:
>  ret double %calltmp
> }
>
> but when I try to verify the wrapping function, I get:
>
> Instruction does not dominate all uses!
>  %calltmp = call double @test(double 1.000000e+01) ; <double>
[#uses=1]
>  ret double %calltmp
>
> The code that I'm using to create the wrapping functions:
> http://pastebin.com/1Jzm8LgP
>
> What's going on here? From what I understand , "Instruction does
not
> dominate all uses!" has to do with using a variable before its
definition? I
> don't see where/how that's happening here.
>
> --
> View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Instruction-does-not-dominate-all-uses--tp29422733p29422733.html
> Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>

Ah, ok, so the call to builder.CreateCall needs to come
after builder.SetInsertPoint for the wrapping function to work properly? I
think I get it now.

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at
gmail.com>wrote:
> You need to insert v into the basic block before the return.  Note
> that %calltmp is absent from the dump of the function.  The verifier
> is complaining because it found this pointer to %calltmp, but it
> didn't find the definition anywhere above its use.
>
> Reid
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:04 PM, alecbenzer <alecbenzer at gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > This has been driving me crazy. In order to JIT stuff in a simple REPL
> I'm
> > trying to wrap them in anonymous functions and then evaluate them (as
per
> > recommendation of the Kaleidoscope guide).
> >
> > With simple expressions it works fine. Like if I try and add 4 and 5,
I
> get
> > this from the bare llvm::Value dump:
> >
> > double 9.000000e+00
> >
> > and this after it's wrapped in a function:
> >
> > define double @0() {
> > entry:
> >  ret double 9.000000e+00
> > }
> >
> >
> > Then I define a function (ignores its one parameter and returns 4):
> >
> > define double @test(double %x) {
> > entry:
> >  ret double 4.000000e+00
> > }
> >
> > And get the dump from the llvm::Value call to it (passing 10 as the
arg)
> >
> > %calltmp = call double @test(double 1.000000e+01) ; <double>
[#uses=1]
> >
> > the dump from the call wrapped in a function:
> >
> > define double @1() {
> > entry:
> >  ret double %calltmp
> > }
> >
> > but when I try to verify the wrapping function, I get:
> >
> > Instruction does not dominate all uses!
> >  %calltmp = call double @test(double 1.000000e+01) ; <double>
[#uses=1]
> >  ret double %calltmp
> >
> > The code that I'm using to create the wrapping functions:
> > http://pastebin.com/1Jzm8LgP
> >
> > What's going on here? From what I understand , "Instruction
does not
> > dominate all uses!" has to do with using a variable before its
> definition? I
> > don't see where/how that's happening here.
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
>
http://old.nabble.com/Instruction-does-not-dominate-all-uses--tp29422733p29422733.html
> > Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100812/b7cc44fb/attachment.html>