search for: afront

...1); > > Value *Two = ConstantSInt::get(Type::IntTy, 2); > > > > // Get pointers to the integer argument of the add1 function... > > assert(FibF->abegin() != FibF->aend()); // Make sure there's an arg > > > > Argument &ArgX = FibF->afront(); // Get the arg > > ArgX.setName("AnArg"); // Give it a nice symbolic name for fun. > > > > SetCondInst* CondInst > > = new SetCondInst( Instruction::SetLE, > > &ArgX, Two ); > > > > BB->getInstList().pus...

can we assume that for(Function::aiterator I = F.abegin(); E = F.aend(); I!=E; ++I) { .... } or Argument *FA = &F.afront(); do { FA = FA->getNext(); .... } while (FA != &F.aback()); would iterate over function "F" formal parameters in order? All the tests I've run so far indicate so, but unless it is guaranteed, I don't see how can I match formal and actual parameters for a funct...

...stantSInt::get(Type::IntTy, 1); > Value *Two = ConstantSInt::get(Type::IntTy, 2); > > // Get pointers to the integer argument of the add1 function... > assert(FibF->abegin() != FibF->aend()); // Make sure there's an arg > > Argument &ArgX = FibF->afront(); // Get the arg > ArgX.setName("AnArg"); // Give it a nice symbolic name for fun. > > SetCondInst* CondInst > = new SetCondInst( Instruction::SetLE, > &ArgX, Two ); > > BB->getInstList().push_back(CondInst); > >...

...t; Value *Two = ConstantSInt::get(Type::IntTy, 2); >>> >>> // Get pointers to the integer argument of the add1 function... >>> assert(FibF->abegin() != FibF->aend()); // Make sure there's an arg >>> >>> Argument &ArgX = FibF->afront(); // Get the arg >>> ArgX.setName("AnArg"); // Give it a nice symbolic name for fun. >>> >>> SetCondInst* CondInst >>> = new SetCondInst( Instruction::SetLE, >>> &ArgX, Two ); >>> >>> BB->g...

...ntSInt::get(Type::IntTy, 2); > >>> > >>> // Get pointers to the integer argument of the add1 function... > >>> assert(FibF->abegin() != FibF->aend()); // Make sure there's an arg > >>> > >>> Argument &ArgX = FibF->afront(); // Get the arg > >>> ArgX.setName("AnArg"); // Give it a nice symbolic name for fun. > >>> > >>> SetCondInst* CondInst > >>> = new SetCondInst( Instruction::SetLE, > >>> &ArgX, Two ); > >&gt...

Hi LLVMers, the example attached I have used to prove that JIT and some visible optimizations are really invoked. Proved OK. I got 30% speed-up in comparison to gcc 3.3.3 on my Athlon XP 1500. Nice. P.S. guys, no fears, I don't plan to flood the cvs repository with my "brilliant" examples ;) --- Valery A.Khamenya -------------- next part -------------- An

...ointers to the constant `1'... > Value *One = ConstantSInt::get(Type::IntTy, 1); > > // Get pointers to the integer argument of the add1 function... > assert(Add1F->abegin() != Add1F->aend()); // Make sure there's an arg > Argument &ArgX = Add1F->afront(); // Get the arg > > // Create the add instruction... does not insert... > Instruction *Add = BinaryOperator::create(Instruction::Add, One, &ArgX, > "addresult"); > > // explicitly insert it into the bas...

Reid Spencer, thank you for your quick responce, finally i got to my PC at home. You wrote: > Attached are three files: "valery.cpp" which contains your original, > "reid.cpp" which contains corrections to most of the FIXME items and > "diffs" which shows the differences between them. The differences > should be instructive on what to do. You were

Valery, Attached are three files: "valery.cpp" which contains your original, "reid.cpp" which contains corrections to most of the FIXME items and "diffs" which shows the differences between them. The differences should be instructive on what to do. You were really, really close .. just a few details changing. The code in "reid.cpp" compiles but I