search for: addmd

...METADATA_ATTACHMENT reader!"); 1605 Instruction *Inst = InstructionList[Record[0]]; 1606 for (unsigned i = 1; i != RecordLength; i = i+2) { 1607 unsigned Kind = Record[i]; 1608 Value *Node = MDValueList.getValueFwdRef(Record[i+1]); 1609 TheMetadata.addMD(Kind, cast<MDNode>(Node), Inst); 1610 } 1611 break; 1612 } At line 1606, i never becomes equal to RecordLength. Regards, -Mahadevan.

...r!"); > 1605 Instruction *Inst = InstructionList[Record[0]]; > 1606 for (unsigned i = 1; i != RecordLength; i = i+2) { > 1607 unsigned Kind = Record[i]; > 1608 Value *Node = MDValueList.getValueFwdRef(Record[i+1]); > 1609 TheMetadata.addMD(Kind, cast<MDNode>(Node), Inst); > 1610 } > 1611 break; > 1612 } > > At line 1606, i never becomes equal to RecordLength. I strongly suspect this is llvm.org/PR5278 . Please add your comments there, thanks! Nick

hi all, i have a pass that wants to attach metadata to argument for later optimization pass, but i found that MetadataConext only have a method "void addMD(unsigned Kind, MDNode *Node, Instruction *Inst);", so, attaching metadata to LLVM Values other rather than Instruction is not support yet? thanks --ether

Hi,all I tried to run the generated whole-program bitcode of BIND,but I got some information: 0 lli 0x0000000000feda16 1 lli 0x0000000000fed88f 2 libpthread.so.0 0x0000003df340eee0 3 libc.so.6 0x0000003df28332f5 gsignal + 53 4 libc.so.6 0x0000003df2834b20 abort + 384 5 libc.so.6 0x0000003df282c2fa __assert_fail + 234 6 lli

...tMD(DbgKind, TheCall); + } + for (; I != NewBB->end(); ++I) { + if (TheCallMD && I->hasMetadata()) + if (MDNode *IMD = Context.getMetadata().getMD(DbgKind, I)) { + MDNode *NewMD = UpdateInlinedAtInfo(IMD, TheCallMD, Context); + Context.getMetadata().addMD(DbgKind, NewMD, I); + } RemapInstruction(I, ValueMap); + } } // Defer PHI resolution until rest of function is resolved, PHI resolution Index: Utils/InlineFunction.cpp =================================================================== --- Utils/InlineFunction.cpp (revision...

Devang Patel wrote: > Hi John, > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:04 PM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> 1) I recall reading somewhere that a few optimizations in LLVM 2.6 strip >> away debug information when such information interferes with >> optimization. Is this correct, >> > > Yes. > >