search for: cgnodeitre

...CCPass(ID) {} virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.setPreservesAll(); AU.addRequired<LoopInfo>(); } virtual bool runOnSCC(CallGraphSCC &SCC) { for (CallGraphSCC::iterator CGNodeItr = SCC.begin(), CFNodeItrE=SCC.end();CGNodeItr!=CGNodeItrE;++CGNodeItr) } const CallGraphNode *CGNode = *CGNodeItr; Function *F = CGNode->getFunction(); if (!F->isDeclaration()) LoopInfo &LI = getAnalysis<LoopInfo>(*F); } return false; }...

I would have thought this would have been possible. On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > So is this simply not possible? > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Nick, >> >> Thanks for this info, though this didn't help my problem at all. >> >>

...etAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { >            AU.setPreservesAll(); >            AU.addRequired<LoopInfo>(); >   } >   virtual bool runOnSCC(CallGraphSCC &SCC) { >        for (CallGraphSCC::iterator CGNodeItr = SCC.begin(), > CFNodeItrE=SCC.end();CGNodeItr!=CGNodeItrE;++CGNodeItr)  } >                   const CallGraphNode *CGNode = *CGNodeItr; >                   Function *F = CGNode->getFunction(); >                   if (!F->isDeclaration()) >                                LoopInfo &LI = getAnalysis<LoopInfo>(*F); >         } &...

...void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { >            AU.setPreservesAll(); >            AU.addRequired<LoopInfo>(); >  } >  virtual bool runOnSCC(CallGraphSCC &SCC) { >        for (CallGraphSCC::iterator CGNodeItr = SCC.begin(), CFNodeItrE=SCC.end();CGNodeItr!=CGNodeItrE;++CGNodeItr)  } >                  const CallGraphNode *CGNode = *CGNodeItr; >                  Function *F = CGNode->getFunction(); >                  if (!F->isDeclaration()) >                                LoopInfo &LI = getAnalysis<LoopInfo>(*F); >        } >...

...&AU) const { > > AU.setPreservesAll(); > > AU.addRequired<LoopInfo>(); > > } > > virtual bool runOnSCC(CallGraphSCC &SCC) { > > for (CallGraphSCC::iterator CGNodeItr = SCC.begin(), > > CFNodeItrE=SCC.end();CGNodeItr!=CGNodeItrE;++CGNodeItr) } > > const CallGraphNode *CGNode = *CGNodeItr; > > Function *F = CGNode->getFunction(); > > if (!F->isDeclaration()) > > LoopInfo &LI = getAnalysis<LoopInfo>(*...

I'm building a SCCPass below, it appears that the CallGraphNode->getFunction returns a valid function but seg faults on call like "getName" or "size" but not on calls like "empty" (which returns false). My understanding is that the heirarchy is: CallGraphSCC->CallGraphNode->Function->BasicBlock->Instruction, is this not the case? virtual bool

...sUsage &AU) const { > > AU.setPreservesAll(); > > AU.addRequired<LoopInfo>(); > > } > > virtual bool runOnSCC(CallGraphSCC &SCC) { > > for (CallGraphSCC::iterator CGNodeItr = SCC.begin(), > CFNodeItrE=SCC.end();CGNodeItr!=CGNodeItrE;++CGNodeItr) } > > const CallGraphNode *CGNode = *CGNodeItr; > > Function *F = CGNode->getFunction(); > > if (!F->isDeclaration()) > > LoopInfo &LI = getAnalysis<LoopInfo>(*F);...