search for: insertatend

...html#a073c092ce74a122e898e435e60e84599>(Value <http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1Value.html> *Op, const Twine <http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1Twine.html> &Name,01824 BasicBlock <http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1BasicBlock.html> *InsertAtEnd) {01825 Value <http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1Value.html> *zero = ConstantFP::getZeroValueForNegation <http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1ConstantFP.html#ab4d218c572245abd0b1c895d603cba36>(Op->getType <http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1Value.html#a0cf3748dba54f931bb12...

...-03 at 18:56 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > Other IR objects (like instructions) have very simple ownership. An > instruction is owned by its basic block, a bb is owned by the function, a > function is owned by thet module. If an instruction is initially allocated with its Instruction *insertAtEnd parameter defaulted to null, and then later appended to a BasicBlock, will the BasicBlock take ownership of the Instruction? Thanks, -Jonathan

Hi Shuying, You will find in the documentation that amongst the overloaded CallInst::Create()'s there is one that takes no function arguments: static CallInst* llvm::CallInst::Create ( Value * F, const Twine & NameStr, BasicBlock * InsertAtEnd); Regards On 23/11/2010, at 11:20 AM, Shuying Liang wrote: > Hi, I want to insert a function with a void type parameter, > for example: int foo(void); > OI declared > fcall2 = M.getOrInsertFunction("foo", > IntegerType::get(M.getContext(), 32), > Type::g...

...block InsertBefore was in, right after InsertBefore. While writing my frontend this was never the case; I always wanted to append to the end of a basic block. So I introduced this constructor variant: Instruction(const Type *Ty, unsigned iType, const std::string &Name, BasicBlock *InsertAtEnd); which inserts the newly created instruction to the end of InsertAtEnd basic block. I hope others will find this useful. -- Alkis

Hi, I want to insert a function with a void type parameter, for example: int foo(void); OI declared fcall2 = M.getOrInsertFunction("foo", IntegerType::get(M.getContext(), 32), Type::getVoidTy(M.getContext())); then the question is how to get the void type value to make the CallInst inserted sucessfully? (what should be ********) CallInst::Create(fcall2, ******,

...ivart at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Shuying, > You will find in the documentation that amongst the > overloaded CallInst::Create()'s there is one that takes no function > arguments: > static CallInst* > llvm::CallInst::Create ( Value * F, const Twine & NameStr, BasicBlock * InsertAtEnd); > > Regards > On 23/11/2010, at 11:20 AM, Shuying Liang wrote: > > Hi, I want to insert a function with a void type parameter, > for example: int foo(void); > OI declared > fcall2 = M.getOrInsertFunction("foo", >    IntegerType::get(M.getContext(), 32), >  ...

Hi, This is probably more of a standard C++ question instead of an actual LLVM question, but here it goes anyway. I'm trying to invoke the following constructor: CallInst::CallInst(Value *Func, InputIterator ArgBegin, InputIterator ArgEnd, const Twine &NameStr, BasicBlock *InsertAtEnd); My code is: using namespace llvm; void replaceByClone(Function *f, CallInst *I){ Function *clone = CloneFunction(f); BasicBlock::iterator ii(I); ReplaceInstWithInst(I->getParent()->getInstList(),ii,CallInst(clone,clone->arg_begin(),clone->arg_end())); } Compiling generates the foll...

...ng, GetElementPtrInst(Value *Ptr, const std::vector<Value*> &Idx, const std::string &Name = "", Instruction *InsertBefore =0); GetElementPtrInst(Value *Ptr, const std::vector<Value*> &Idx, // or Idx1, Idx2 const std::string &Name, BasicBlock *InsertAtEnd); How could I create the fourth IR ? Thanks %tmp.35 = getelementptr [3 x sbyte*]* %pGVars, int 0, int 0 ; <sbyte**> [#uses=1] %tmp.36 = load sbyte** %tmp.35 ; <sbyte*> [#uses=1] %tmp.37 = load int* %i ; <int> [#uses=1]...

Hi Tony, I just checked LLVM 2.3 and ReturnInst has these: static ReturnInst* Create(Value * const* retVals, unsigned N, Instruction *InsertBefore) static ReturnInst* Create(Value * const* retVals, unsigned N, BasicBlock *InsertAtEnd) which are what you're looking for. In LLVM trunk, MRV-syntax LLVM assembly files and bitcode files are auto-upgraded to first-class aggregates in the respective readers. However at the C++ API level, clients must be adapted. Dan On Sep 12, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Tony Scudiero wrote: > Dan,...

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > I've been reading the headers and > http://llvm.org/releases/2.1/docs/ProgrammersManual.html and I'm still > confused about a pretty fundamental point... who is expected to clean up > various objects when we're finished with them, and when? Ok, different objects have different life times. The important ones are: (most)

Dan, Thanks for the info. Unfortunately for the time being we are using (for the most part) the 2.3 release (with a couple of patches that Dave Greene has applied). The first-class aggregates is one of the things we don't yet have in the LLVM we're working with. I'll look again to see if there's a ReturnInst::Create( ) which I can pass an array of llvm::Value *'s to,

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I've been reading the headers and http://llvm.org/releases/2.1/docs/ProgrammersManual.html and I'm still confused about a pretty fundamental point... who is expected to clean up various objects when we're finished with them, and when? Let's say I've created a module, retrieved a bunch of types, created a function, a basic block,

...igned int)' Ok, that makes sense. It's an illegal conversion. So my question is, what's the right fix? The current code uses this CallInst constructor: CallInst::CallInst(Value *Func, Value* const *Args, unsigned NumArgs, const std::string &Name, BasicBlock *InsertAtEnd) What's the intent of the TreeToLLVM::EmitMemCpy code? I don't know enough about the gcc frontend to be sure. I'll submit a patch as soon as I better understand what's being done here. -Dave

...code space > shouldn't be an issue. Code size is always an issue. What specifically are you proposing? I assume you want to eliminate/supplement this ctor: CallInst::CallInst(Value *Func, Value* const *Args, unsigned NumArgs, const std::string &Name, BasicBlock *InsertAtEnd) Turning it into a template would require duplicating it (small), and CallInst::init (large). I don't really think this is workable. >>> We could also just ignore the problem. I'm not clear on what the effects >>> of that would be in the long term. Is this something we...

...stion instead of an actual >>> LLVM question, but here it goes anyway. I'm trying to invoke the >>> following constructor: >>> CallInst::CallInst(Value *Func, InputIterator ArgBegin, InputIterator >>> ArgEnd, >>> const Twine &NameStr, BasicBlock *InsertAtEnd); >>> >>> My code is: >>> >>> using namespace llvm; >>> void replaceByClone(Function *f, CallInst *I){ >>> Function *clone = CloneFunction(f); >>> BasicBlock::iterator ii(I); >>> >>> ReplaceInstWithInst(I->getParent...

On Monday 02 July 2007 16:26, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Nick Lewycky wrote: > > I've been running LLVM with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG (extra checks) turned on to > > see what would happen, and it's been a complete disaster. Well, that's a bit harsh, isn't it? It's finding bugs, just like it's supposed to. :) I believe I've started to run into

...Value *Cmp, Value *NewVal, - AtomicOrdering Ordering, SynchronizationScope SynchScope, + AtomicOrdering SuccessOrdering, + AtomicOrdering FailureOrdering, + SynchronizationScope SynchScope, BasicBlock *InsertAtEnd); /// isVolatile - Return true if this is a cmpxchg from a volatile memory @@ -496,13 +501,20 @@ public: DECLARE_TRANSPARENT_OPERAND_ACCESSORS(Value); /// Set the ordering constraint on this cmpxchg. - void setOrdering(AtomicOrdering Ordering) { + void setSuccessOrdering(AtomicOrderi...