search for: def_itterator

...s for the explanation. > > > > For non-SSA values, is there some indication of which defs reach which > > uses? I don't need this right now but I can imagine using it in the > > future. > > The reg def/kill/dead flags are all that there is. I just discovered that def_itterator (and presumably, reg_iterator) doesn't include implicit defs, for example at function calls for caller-save physical registers. Guh. I'm not sure if it should or not, but it's certainly necessary information in some cases. Is this expected behavior, or an oversight?...

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Evan Cheng wrote: >> I just discovered that def_itterator (and presumably, reg_iterator) >> doesn't >> include implicit defs, for example at function calls for caller-save >> physical >> registers. Guh. I'm not sure if it should or not, but it's certainly >> necessary information in some cases. Is this expected...

...> For non-SSA values, is there some indication of which defs reach >>> which >>> uses? I don't need this right now but I can imagine using it in the >>> future. >> >> The reg def/kill/dead flags are all that there is. > > I just discovered that def_itterator (and presumably, reg_iterator) > doesn't > include implicit defs, for example at function calls for caller-save > physical > registers. Guh. I'm not sure if it should or not, but it's certainly > necessary information in some cases. Is this expected behavior, or an...

On Monday 31 March 2008 18:55, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Evan Cheng wrote: > >> I just discovered that def_itterator (and presumably, reg_iterator) > >> doesn't > >> include implicit defs, for example at function calls for caller-save > >> physical > >> registers. Guh. I'm not sure if it should or not, but it's certainly > >> necessary information in some...

On Sunday 30 March 2008 01:30:40 pm Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mar 30, 2008, at 11:17 AM, David Greene wrote: > > I'm forwarding this to llvmdev so it doesn't get lost in the sea of > > commits... > > reg_iterators are independent of SSA or not. The basic issue is that > if you loop over uses or defs of a register, it will return *all* the > uses/defs of that

On Mar 30, 2008, at 10:42 PM, David A. Greene wrote: >> SSA form, it is reasonable to say "give me the first def" and expect >> it to be the only def. For multiply defined values like physregs, >> this is not true, because the reg can have multiple defs. > > Gotcha. This is exactly what I want. Thanks for the explanation. > > For non-SSA values, is there

On Mar 31, 2008, at 4:55 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Evan Cheng wrote: >>> I just discovered that def_itterator (and presumably, reg_iterator) >>> doesn't >>> include implicit defs, for example at function calls for caller-save >>> physical >>> registers. Guh. I'm not sure if it should or not, but it's >>> certainly >>> necessary informati...