search for: ilists

Hi All, I have just started using LLVM . i am facing a issue while using ilist container. Here is a struct with ilist container as its one element. typedef ilist<Instruction *> InstListType; struct list_node { int Impact; InstListType InstList; }; list_node

Hi llvm-devel, I have migrated my codebase from llvm-3.6 to llvm 3.8.1-stable. Although I was able to resolve most of the problems, I am facing issues resolving the following: To insert an instruction immediately after the first instruction within a basic block, I first get all instructions in my basic block in an instruction container list. Once that is done, I insert my new instruction in the

I think the implicit iterator conversions are much less important now that we have range based for loops, but I still like having them. On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 2015-Oct-07, at 17:57, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> > wrote: > > > > I've been

"Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: >> On 2015-Oct-20, at 11:23, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >> >> I think the implicit iterator conversions are much less important >> now that we have range based for loops, but I still like having >> them. > > IMO, if a developer has an ilist iterator

I tried on a different machine x86_64 ( vs x86 ) and I don't have these issues anymore (the tests are failing on the x86 machine because of a segmentation fault) Both builds were done using: g++ (GCC) 4.2.4 (Ubuntu 4.2.4-1ubuntu4) Something should be wrong with my environment... The only differences I noticed during the compilation are the following warnings (which appear several times, but

Hello all, I really, really, really need your help. This is my third email now, please don't ignore me! I understand this must be a trivial thing, but I've ground to a halt, and REALLY need some guidance. Please see below for the context of my problem. I'm not trying to be a waste of time, but I'm desperate here. I have a getAnalysisUsage method which does the following

Jon, > You want: > TaintVar->insertAfter(FirstI); This worked! Thank you. On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > > > On 8/25/16 7:01 AM, Shehbaz Jaffer via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> I tried an alternative way of adding instruction by first getting the >> first instruction of the basic block, and then

I've been digging into some undefined behaviour stemming from how ilist is typically configured. r247937, r247944, and r247978 caused a UBSan failure to start firing on our Green Dragon bots, and after an IRC conversation between David and Nick and Mehdi, we added a blacklist: -- $echo "src:$WORKSPACE/llvm/include/llvm/CodeGen/MachineFunction.h" >> sanitize.blacklist --

Yes, it is a pass. Here is a very general overview of the file structure as far as the AA is concerned. LLVM is not my strong-suit, I do hardware simulators, not compilers. using namespace llvm; char RelRecovery::ID = 0; static RegisterPass<RelRecovery> X("relRecovery", "Reliability transformation for lightweight recovery"); void

Griffin Wright wrote: > > Hello all, > > I really, really, really need your help. This is my third email now, > please don't ignore me! I understand this must be a trivial thing, but > I've ground to a halt, and REALLY need some guidance. Please see below for > the context of my problem. I'm not trying to be a waste of time, but I'm > desperate here.

I am using LLVM 2.6 and I have a question on the use of the BasicBlock::iterator to hoist loop invariant instructions to the loop preheader. When I process the instructions backward as shown in the following code, I got the following error right after the "hoist(I)" is done. Can anyone advise whether I am misusing BasicBlock::iterator? /opt/llvms/src/llvm_26/

Hello all, I am working with someone else's LLVM code, which is about 8 months old. Part of this pass involves AliasAnalysis, and I'm getting the above assertion when the pass completes. The dump is as follows: -------------------------------- Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. 0xf7fdf430 in __kernel_vsyscall () (gdb) bt #0 0xf7fdf430 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xf602e921 in

On Apr 26, 2011, at 4:44 PM, Damien Vincent wrote: > > I am testing the latest LLVM release (2.9). > When I run the regression tests, I get many failures: > > cd llvm-2.9.build/test > make > Expected Passes : 2605 > Expected Failures : 46 > Unsupported Tests : 542 > >>> Unexpected Failures: 2658 > > For info: > - I was working with

Hi all, Two days ago MachineBasicBlock got ilistified. What does this mean and how does it affect you? Read on. MachineBasicBlock used to have a std::vector<MachineInstr*> to represent the instructions it constisted of. This representation has the following problems: 1) O(n) insertions/removals to/from anywhere but the end of a basic block (removals are very comomn in peephole

Hi Bill, I am using the following version of BuildMI : MachineInstrBuilder BuildMI(MachineFunction &MF, const TargetInstrDesc &TID, unsigned DestReg) I do the following : void createInstrs(std::vector<MachineInstr *>& ilist) { Machine Instr *mi; mi = BuildMI(MF, someTID, somereg);

I am testing the latest LLVM release (2.9). When I run the regression tests, I get many failures: cd llvm-2.9.build/test make Expected Passes : 2605 Expected Failures : 46 Unsupported Tests : 542 >>> Unexpected Failures: 2658 For info: - I was working with 2.8 so far and I didn't have these issues. - LLVM was build using: ../llvm-2.9/configure --enable-assertions

Dear all, The below has been tested quite thoroughly by now, including performance-testing by the way of using a modified compiler that triggers the below while compiling at least an old part of LLVM ["Function.cpp"] and sorting a symbol table with >7000 global variables. Unfortunately, the optimization I have been working on for which I _thought_ I needed the ability to sort a

Eric, could you tell me which version of gcc you are using (According to http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html, gcc 3.4.2 should be used but I don't know if this document is up to date regarding the required software versions) Anyway I also tried with gcc version 3.4.6 (Ubuntu 3.4.6-6ubuntu5) And now, I get a bunch of errors like this one: llvm-2.9/lib/Support/regcomp.c: In function `cset*

> On 2016-Jul-11, at 09:05, Ulrich Weigand <ulrich.weigand at de.ibm.com> wrote: > > uweigand accepted this revision. > uweigand added a comment. > This revision is now accepted and ready to land. > > I'll defer to your expertise on that. Patch looks good to me. > > I guess I'm not fully familiar with some of the C++ language details here. Would you

Hi Gang-Ryung! Your reverse iteration of instructions in the BB > * for (BasicBlock::iterator II = BB->end(); II != BB->begin(); ) *{ > > Instruction &I = *--II; > > if (isLoopInvariantInst(I) && canSinkOrHoistInst(I) && > isSafeToExecuteUnconditionally(I)) > * hoist(I);* >