search for: at_begin

...gin) > > // Before or after a given instruction: > Builder.new(Before instr) > Builder.new(instr.succ) so I'll see how this can be done a bit, ah, Pythonically. > Finally, just as the C++ STL has reverse_iterator, it did prove > necessary to have a separate (At_begin parent | After element) type in > order to walk the IR backwards. Well, it's possible to do: for inst in reversed(block.instructions): # do stuff with inst which will iterate backwards over the instructions of a block. Thanks & Regards, -Mahadevan.

...there's no need to pass it in separately as in builder.position(block, instr). Also, this could return a precise position: > The current block is returned via the r/o property insert_block. Finally, just as the C++ STL has reverse_iterator, it did prove necessary to have a separate (At_begin parent | After element) type in order to walk the IR backwards. Cheers, Gordon

Hi all, I'd like to announce the availability of Python bindings for LLVM. It is built over llvm-c, and currently exposes enough APIs to build an in-memory IR (and dump it!). It needs LLVM 2.3 latest and Python 2.5 (2.4 should be sufficient, but I haven't tested). Tested only on Linux/i386. Would love to hear your comments. [Needless to say, it's all work in progress, but mostly it

...; let ty = type_of_handle th in insist (define_type_name "RecursiveTy" ty m); insist (ty == element_type ty) Which constructs %RecursiveType = type %RecursiveType*. >> Finally, just as the C++ STL has reverse_iterator, it did prove >> necessary to have a separate (At_begin parent | After element) type >> in order to walk the IR backwards. > > Well, it's possible to do: > > for inst in reversed(block.instructions): > # do stuff with inst > > which will iterate backwards over the instructions of a block. Certainly. There are advantag...