search for: constantexpress

Hi All, I have a question on ConstantExpressions and llvm intrinsic memcpy/memset/memmove. I am using llvm-2.8 release. In one of the C programs that I am compiling using clang frontend, the call to memcpy instrinsic looks like the following call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i64(i8* %tmp2, i8* bitcast (%struct.ta* @tret to i8*), i64 4, i32 4,...

On 4/14/11 6:34 PM, Kodakara, Sreekumar V wrote: > > Hi All, > > I have a question on ConstantExpressions and llvm intrinsic > memcpy/memset/memmove. I am using llvm-2.8 release. In one of the C > programs that I am compiling using clang frontend, the call to memcpy > instrinsic looks like the following > > call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i64(i8* %tmp2, i8* bitcast > (%struct...

Hello, I'm having problems with the following LLVM instruction %tmp.0.i = call int (sbyte*, ...)* %printf( sbyte* getelementptr ([11 x sbyte]* %.str_1, long 0, ...... The first argument in function call, sbyte* getelementptr ([11 x sbyte]* %.str_1..... appears to be ConstantExpression*, and my backend does not support ConstantExpression yet. I probable can implement that, and getelementptr instruction too, but I wonder if I need to. Looking at X86 backend, I see it does some smart things, like folding getelementptr into instruction which uses it, and using 'lea' a...

Hi: For my own Transform passes I need to lower all ConstantExpressions into Instructions in order to conveniently analyze the use-def def-use chains and operand comparisons. Could anyone possibly kindly share some insights on if there is any standard way to do this without crafting my own implementation and if not, should we add this feature into LLVM upstream?...

...ions that can be either constant expressions or instructions, for use in the places where you don’t care which (just as CallSite wraps either an invoke or a call, in places that don’t need to handle them differently). There are a few thing that do make this easier: > > - Both Instruction and ConstantExpression are subclasses of Value > > - (I think) the OpCode for both will be the same, so you can switch on that and then only cast further if you care. > > David > Thanks, David. I had misunderstood and thought that arguments were GEP instructions. Being GEP constant expressions, solves...

Is there any pass that breaks an expression out of an instruction's operand into its own instruction, so that such nested instructions become explicit and are thus easier to work with in? e.g Following|call|instruction contains a|GEP|instruction as its first operand. Is there any pass which allows me to break up this: | %call = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([4

...ith the following LLVM instruction > > %tmp.0.i = call int (sbyte*, ...)* > %printf( sbyte* getelementptr ([11 x sbyte]* %.str_1, long 0, ...... > > The first argument in function call, > > sbyte* getelementptr ([11 x sbyte]* %.str_1..... > > appears to be ConstantExpression*, and my backend does not support > ConstantExpression yet. Ok. > I probable can implement that, and getelementptr instruction too, but I > wonder if I need to. Looking at X86 backend, I see it does some smart > things, like folding getelementptr into instruction which uses it, and...