search for: iity

...r, the instruction list > is more like a std::list<Instruction> (but that allows polymorphism) than > a std::list<Instruction*>, Yea, I've noticed that. However, it looks like inst_iterator is iterator over pointers. Oh, wait a minite, that's the current code: inline IIty operator*() const { return BI; } inline IIty operator->() const { return operator*(); } So operator* works as if value_type is Instruction*, but operator-> works as if value_type is Instruction. Hmm ;-) > so it's not possible to just assign a new > instruction* through an iter...

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Yea, I've noticed that. However, it looks like inst_iterator is iterator over > pointers. Oh, wait a minite, that's the current code: > > inline IIty operator*() const { return BI; } > inline IIty operator->() const { return operator*(); } > > So operator* works as if value_type is Instruction*, but operator-> works as > if value_type is Instruction. Hmm ;-) Yeah, fishy huh? :) > > Probably the right thing to do wou...

...in a machine function and it works. I tried building LLVM 3.1 using clang in order to get a better idea of the error. Here is the build error output: /home/arhishee/work/llvm-3.1.src/include/llvm/Support/GraphWriter.h:143:8: note: candidate function not viable: no known conversion from 'IIty' (aka 'llvm::MachineInstr') to 'NodeType &' (aka 'llvm::Value &') for 1st argument; bool isNodeHidden(NodeType &Node) { ^ /home/arhishee/work/llvm-3.1.src/include/llvm/Support/GraphWriter.h:147:8: note: candidate function not viable: no known convers...

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > and since result of *it is considered to be rvalue it can't be accepted by > this operator. The complete discussion is in > > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1385.htm > > I'd suggest to apply the following patch which makes operator* return > reference to pointer. It makes my code compile and the rest

Hi, I am trying to generate the DFG of machine functions. Initially, I added a pass to generate the DFG of LLVM IR functions. This was based on the mail thread - http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-September/025582.html. This pass worked fine and I was able to generate DFG of LLVM IR functions. Later, I ported the DFG pass code for machine functions. I ported the InstIterator.h

Chris Lattner wrote: > > inline IIty operator*() const { return BI; } > > inline IIty operator->() const { return operator*(); } > > > > So operator* works as if value_type is Instruction*, but operator-> works > > as if value_type is Instruction. Hmm ;-) > > Yeah, fishy huh? :) Yea, a bit. I...

Hello, I think there's a rather subtle problem with the inst_iterator. It declares its iterator category as std::bidirectional_iterator_tag but C++ standard requirements for forward iterator (which are included in requirements for bidirection iterator), say that the type of expression *r; should be T&, where 'r' is the iterator and T is its value type. The inst_iterator,

Hello, I am Abhinav Tripathi, B.Tech 3rd Year student from IIT Indore, India. I was looking on the projects ideas page of llvm and saw that I could also propose to work on the SAFECode Open projects. As I found no mailing list on their site, I am sending this message here. Please redirect me to some other list, if required. . I found most of the projects quite alluring as I have been working on a