search for: deadargumentelimination

TLDR - I have a runtime which expects to be able to inspect certain arguments to a function even if that argument isn't used within the callee itself. DeadArgumentElimination doesn't respect this today. I want to add an argument that records an argument to a call as live even if the value is known to be not used in the callee. My use case ----------------- What my runtime is doing is trying to resolve a symbolic reference to a function from a call site which ha...

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:57 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> / * snip */ >> >> Actually, rebuilding it makes "debug tblgen" fail with the errors at >> the

Dear All, I'm having some problems using a function pass from a Module pass. My code is as follows: DominatorTree & domTree; ... Function &F = *I; // I is an interator from using Module::begin() ... domTree = getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(F); When I compile this code, I get the following error: /home/vadve/criswell/src/llvm22/include/llvm/Pass.h: In member function

Hi Stepan, After discovering several bugs in ArgumentPromotion and DeadArgumentElimination where llvm::Functions were replaced with similar functions (with the same name) to transform their type in some way, I started looking at all calls to llvm::Function::takeName to see if there were any other debug info quality bugs in similar callers. One such caller is MergeFunctions, and I don...

...  can I modify a function to take extra formal parameters? can I update > all calls of the original function to take extra actual paramters?  The > function might be called across multiple modules.   It seems this has to be > done at both ModulePass and FunctionPass levels. > Check out DeadArgumentElimination pass. It does opposite of what you want, but you'll get an idea. - Devang

Hi Peter, After discovering several bugs in ArgumentPromotion and DeadArgumentElimination where llvm::Functions were replaced with similar functions (with the same name) to transform their type in some way, I started looking at all calls to llvm::Function::takeName to see if there were any other debug info quality bugs in similar callers. One such caller is the DataFlowSanitizer, and I...

...extra formal parameters? can I update > > all calls of the original function to take extra actual paramters? The > > function might be called across multiple modules. It seems this has to > be > > done at both ModulePass and FunctionPass levels. > > > > Check out DeadArgumentElimination pass. It does opposite of what you > want, but you'll get an idea. > > - > Devang > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100414/f5ca41f7/attachment.html>

...I'll provide you with detailed information. By now you could > use tests from  $LLVM/test/Transforms/MergeFunc/ as examples. > > Cheers! > -Stepan > > David Blaikie wrote: >>  Hi Stepan, >> >>  After discovering several bugs in ArgumentPromotion and >>  DeadArgumentElimination where llvm::Functions were replaced with similar >>  functions (with the same name) to transform their type in some way, I >>  started looking at all calls to llvm::Function::takeName to see if there >>  were any other debug info quality bugs in similar callers. >> >>...

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:04:30AM -0700, David Blaikie wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > > > After discovering several bugs in ArgumentPromotion and > > DeadArgumentElimination where llvm::Functions were replaced with similar > > functions (with the same name) to transform their type in some way, I > > started looking at all calls to llvm::Function::takeName to see if there > > were any other debug info quality bugs in similar callers. > > > &gt...

...at 11:48 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:04:30AM -0700, David Blaikie wrote: >>> > Hi Peter, >>> > >>> > After discovering several bugs in ArgumentPromotion and >>> > DeadArgumentElimination where llvm::Functions were replaced with >>> similar >>> > functions (with the same name) to transform their type in some way, I >>> > started looking at all calls to llvm::Function::takeName to see if >>> there >>> > were any other debug info q...

Hi, I am writing my own passes in LLVM. I start with a function with various uses of a LLVM IR function parameter: e.g. paramB. After running one of my passes, all the uses of the paramB vanish. How do I do the last step, and remove the paramB from the function parameters in the LLVM IR? I want to go from: function test( int paramA, int paramB) { ... } to: function test( int paramA) { ... }

Hi, When using the LLVM IR builder, I have a situation that might have 5 parameters when building the function nodes and instructions. Later on, I wish to remove one of the parameters so the same function now has only 4 parameters. For example, the parameter may not actually be used by any of the instructions in the function. How do I remove a parameter from the function? I am hoping that there

Hi Everyone, Can Someone tell me all the interprocedural optimizations that LLVM 2.1 supports. Thank You, Naineet Patel CSE IITB

...years now, but I have a *very* long TODO list. :) Here are some examples of the header comments: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi/llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/ArgumentPromotion.cpp?rev=1.5&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi/llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/DeadArgumentElimination.cpp?rev=1.16&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LICM.cpp?rev=1.59&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/Reassociate.cpp?rev=1.30&content-type=text/x-cvswe...

...ude/llvm/Support/YAMLTraits.h lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp lib/MC/ELFObjectWriter.cpp lib/MC/WinCOFFObjectWriter.cpp lib/Support/APFloat.cpp lib/Support/DynamicLibrary.cpp lib/Target/R600/AMDGPUSubtarget.h lib/Target/R600/AMDILDevice.h lib/Target/R600/AMDILPeepholeOptimizer.cpp lib/Transforms/IPO/DeadArgumentElimination.cpp (and on and on) So I assume the new message would be: [llvm-commits] [llvm] r172358 - Remove redundant 'llvm::' qualifications Which seems reasonable. (I think the repo prefix is helpful given that both the Clang and LLVM lists handle mail for multiple repositories (llvm + compiler-r...

Hi folk, I'm a newbie to llvm, please first forgive my naive questions. I want to instrument llvm code to do some run-time monitoring work. After reading some of the llvm documentation, it begins clear to me that I can do the instrumentation in a transformation pass. There are several things I want to do in the transformation pass, but I'm not sure whether they are doable and how to do

Hi devels, there are two issues concerning invoking optimizations: 1. this document: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/GettingStarted.html is very nice, it would be good though to add in a section An Example Using the LLVM Tool Chain examples on optimization step. 2. If i am not wrong there is no tool, which integrates all steps: llvmgcc->opt->llc into something like llcc (and

Hi, I have the following piece of code: %34 = fptosi float %33 to i32 %35 = call i32 @function(i32 %34) nounwind I would like of know how can I duplicate the statement %35 ? , as follows: %34 = fptosi float %33 to i32 %35 = call i32 @function(i32 %34) nounwind *%36 = **call i32 @function(i32 %34) nounwind* * * i.e, two instructions exactly equal. Using clone, results in badref. Moreover, how

...>> wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:04:30AM -0700, David Blaikie wrote: > > >>> > Hi Peter, > > >>> > > > >>> > After discovering several bugs in ArgumentPromotion and > > >>> > DeadArgumentElimination where llvm::Functions were replaced with > > >>> similar > > >>> > functions (with the same name) to transform their type in some > way, I > > >>> > started looking at all calls to llvm::Function::takeName to see if > > >>> there...

David Blaikie wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Sebastian Pop <spop at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Sebastian Pop wrote: > >> Chris Lattner wrote: > >> > I'm in favor of it. Of course, the truly awesomest thing would be something like: > >> > > >> > [cfe-commits] r167788 - [lib/Analysis] Fix bad CFG