Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "giter".
Did you mean:
iter
2004 Oct 19
1
[LLVMdev] Re:question about Insert callInst to call a function in library
...ant *randKey;
};
RegisterOpt<DecodeStr> X("DecodeStr", "Decode to visible string");
}
bool DecodeStr::runOnFunction(Function &F){
get_randKey(F.getParent());
DecodeString(F.getParent());
return true;
}
void DecodeStr::get_randKey(Module *M){
for(Module::giterator gI=M->gbegin(),gE=M->gend();gI!=gE;++gI){
std::string GVname = gI->getName();
if(strcmp(GVname.c_str(),"Gvkey")==0){
randKey =(gI->getInitializer());
}
}
}
void DecodeStr::DecodeString(Module *M){
std::cerr<<"filename "<<M->g...
2004 Apr 02
1
[LLVMdev] Verifier & abort()
...ing all of the external function's linkage now...
for (Module::iterator I = M.begin(), E = M.end(); I != E; ++I)
visitGlobalValue(*I);
for (Module::giterator I = M.gbegin(), E = M.gend(); I != E; ++I)
visitGlobalValue(*I);
// If the module is broken, abort at this time.
abortIfBroken();
return fals...
2005 Mar 15
0
[LLVMdev] Consistency patches to Module and Function
Dear llvm-devs,
we discussed a consistency issue with the naming of
iterators in the #llvm IRC channel and I came up
with a patch to Module.h and Function.h.
The patch renames the aiterator family of typedefs
to arg_iterator in Function and correspondingly
giterator and friends to global_iterator.
The accessor functions also change accordingly.
Right now the old spellings are preserved, but
will go away after some time. So this is a heads-up
to do a global replace in your non-LLVM-CVS codes
from the old names to the new ones.
The change is blessed by Chr...
2004 Apr 01
0
[LLVMdev] Verifier & abort()
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Reid Spencer wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 18:04, Misha Brukman wrote:
>
> > Perhaps another solution would be to throw an exception with the error
> > message?
>
> Perhaps, but that would violate the programming contract already in
> place. Right now LLVM and its users expect failed verifications to cause
> an abort(). I wouldn't want to
2004 Apr 01
4
[LLVMdev] Verifier & abort()
On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 18:04, Misha Brukman wrote:
> Perhaps another solution would be to throw an exception with the error
> message?
Perhaps, but that would violate the programming contract already in
place. Right now LLVM and its users expect failed verifications to cause
an abort(). I wouldn't want to unleash on LLVM the new semantics of now
handling exceptions in every place the