Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "argoperand".
Did you mean:
addoperand
2010 Jun 30
4
[LLVMdev] [HEADSUP] Another attempt at CallInst operand rotation
...plan:
I will fire two rounds,
- the first will catch all instances of CallInst::get/setOperand(0, ...)
and suggest using get/setCalledValue (or getCalledFuntion).
- the second will make all low-level operand accessors private
in CallInst, and thus give external clients the chance to use
*ArgOperand* versions. This will be well-commented in the
header, explaining the recommended way of accessing
arguments.
At this point we will have caught 99% of all low-level clients out
there.
What uncertainties will remain? I can think of two of them:
o getOperandNo()
o access via baseclass...
2010 Jul 01
0
[LLVMdev] [HEADSUP] Another attempt at CallInst operand rotation
...o rounds,
> - the first will catch all instances of CallInst::get/setOperand(0, ...)
> and suggest using get/setCalledValue (or getCalledFuntion).
> - the second will make all low-level operand accessors private
> in CallInst, and thus give external clients the chance to use
> *ArgOperand* versions. This will be well-commented in the
> header, explaining the recommended way of accessing
> arguments.
>
> At this point we will have caught 99% of all low-level clients out
> there.
>
> What uncertainties will remain? I can think of two of them:
>
>...
2010 Jul 05
1
[LLVMdev] [HEADSUP] Another attempt at CallInst operand rotation
...will catch all instances of CallInst::get/setOperand
>> (0, ...)
>> and suggest using get/setCalledValue (or getCalledFuntion).
>> - the second will make all low-level operand accessors private
>> in CallInst, and thus give external clients the chance to use
>> *ArgOperand* versions. This will be well-commented in the
>> header, explaining the recommended way of accessing
>> arguments.
>>
>> At this point we will have caught 99% of all low-level clients out
>> there.
>>
>> What uncertainties will remain? I can think of tw...
2010 Jun 30
0
[LLVMdev] [HEADSUP] Another attempt at CallInst operand rotation
...ounds,
> - the first will catch all instances of CallInst::get/setOperand(0, ...)
> and suggest using get/setCalledValue (or getCalledFuntion).
> - the second will make all low-level operand accessors private
> in CallInst, and thus give external clients the chance to use
> *ArgOperand* versions. This will be well-commented in the
> header, explaining the recommended way of accessing
> arguments.
>
Stupid question: is making the getOperand() method of CallInst going to
work? For example, if I have the following code:
void
method (Instruction * I) {
I->...