search for: codeinfo

...thing, the second version of CloneFunction() (from http://llvm.org/doxygen/Cloning_8h_source.html): 00114 Function *CloneFunction(const Function *F, 00115 ValueToValueMapTy &VMap, 00116 bool ModuleLevelChanges, 00117 ClonedCodeInfo *CodeInfo = 0); 00118 00119 /// CloneFunction - Version of the function that doesn't need the VMap. 00120 /// 00121 inline Function *CloneFunction(const Function *F, ClonedCodeInfo *CodeInfo = 0){ 00122 ValueToValueMapTy VMap; 00123 return CloneFunction(F, VMap, CodeInfo); 00124 } seems to...

Hi, I am trying to use the CloneFunction from llvm/Transforms/Utils/Cloning.h and I don't understand how the ValueToValueMapTy argument should be initialized. For instance, let say I want to clone this function (to add an argument): define void @function(i32 %i) #0 { entry: %i.addr = alloca i32, align 4 store i32 %i, i32* %i.addr, align 4 ret void } to another function which should,

...> cloned_function = CloneFunction( > function, > VM, > false /* or true? didn't get the difference */ > ); > > > Current LLVM has this prototype: > > Function *CloneFunction(Function *F, ValueToValueMapTy &VMap, > ClonedCodeInfo *CodeInfo = nullptr); > > Notice that the last argument is not a boolean (You may be using a > different version of LLVM?). > Also, the API takes a function and returns another one. I’m not sure what > you expect by first declaring another function with its arguments: it won’t > b...

...e fly. The /// effect of this is to copy significantly less code in cases where (for @@ -361,7 +383,8 @@ SmallVectorImpl<ReturnInst*> &Returns, const char *NameSuffix, ClonedCodeInfo *CodeInfo, - const TargetData *TD) { + const TargetData *TD, + Instruction *TheCall) { assert(NameSuffix && "NameSuffix cannot be null!"); #ifndef NDEBUG @@ -411,8 +434...

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. > >