search for: insertbefore

Hi, the insertBefore parameter, present in all constructors, is declared like this: Instruction *InsertBefore=0 any reason there's no "const" before "Instruction" ? - Volodya

Vladimir, Instructions are members of a linked list. Consequently if you insert some Instruction, that instruction gets changed. So, its not const. Simple enough? Reid. On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 01:02, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Hi, > the insertBefore parameter, present in all constructors, is declared like > this: > > Instruction *InsertBefore=0 > > any reason there's no "const" before "Instruction" > > ? > > - Volodya > > _______________________________________________ > LLV...

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'm not opposed to mutable and its probably reasonable in this case. However, I'd defer to Chris' opinion for anything in VMCore. We try to limit the number of changes/additions there because the impact can be quite large if something goes wrong. Reid. On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 04:41, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Hi Reid, > > > Instructions are members of a linked list.

Hi Reid, > Instructions are members of a linked list. Consequently if you insert > some Instruction, that instruction gets changed. So, its not const. > > Simple enough? Yes, thank you. I started thinking if "mutable" is right here, but that's long philosophical issue ;-) - Volodya

To create a new CallInst I used to call the following constructor: CallInst(Value *F, const std::vector<Value*> &Par, const std::string &Name = "", Instruction *InsertBefore = 0); However, it seems as though that constructor has been removed. I assume that I'm suppossed to use the following constructor, but I can't figure out what to pass as the Args parameter (the second parameter). CallInst (Value *F, Value *const *Args, unsigned NumArgs, const std::str...

...in places where the incoming control-edge has changed. Is there anything else that can be affected when a block is inserted into the CFG? Also, planning to write a helper function which will take care of such issues. The general signature is: void reconnectBlocks(BasicBlock *newBlock, BasicBlock *insertBefore , std::vector<BasicBlock*> &preds , bool createBr = true) The std::vector "preds" is used to provide a list of preds for insertBefore, which will be reconnected to newBlock. For cases where all the preds will be reconnected, the function...

...nction()->getName()=="puts") { errs() <<III->getCalledFunction()->getName()<<" function found!\n"; callcheck->insertBefore(II); errs() <<"INSERT SUCCEEDED!!!!!!!!\n"; } else {...

Hi, I have added an insertAfter method to the ilist and Instruction classes. The methods are implemented as efficiently as the currently existing insert and insertBefore methods. The insertAfter method was created to mirror a similar method in another compiler in order to ease an ongoing port. The patch, which is very small is included as AddInsertBefore.patch. Additionally, I wrote a small test pass which demonstrates the correctness of insertAfter and have attach...

...should not affect current code but it may help people who deal with LLVM instructions. Up till now one could create an llvm::Instruction (and subclasses) using the following constructor: Instruction(const Type *Ty, unsigned iType, const std::string &Name ="", Instruction *InsertBefore = 0); If InsertBefore was specified the instruction was added to the basic 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 Typ...

...nction()->getName()=="puts") { errs() <<III->getCalledFunction()->getName()<<" function found!\n"; callcheck->insertBefore(II); errs() <<"INSERT SUCCEEDED!!!!!!!!\n"; } else {...

...n, overlap) { if(overlap>0.5) { Sortable.mark(dropon, ''before''); if(dropon.previousSibling != element) { var oldParentNode = element.parentNode; element.style.visibility = "hidden"; // fix gecko rendering dropon.parentNode.insertBefore(element, dropon); if(dropon.parentNode!=oldParentNode) Sortable.options(oldParentNode).onChange(element); Sortable.options(dropon.parentNode).onChange(element); } } else { Sortable.mark(dropon, ''after''); var nextElement = dro...

...// Constructors - These two constructors are convenience methods because one /// and two index getelementptr instructions are so common. static GetElementPtrInst *Create(Value *Ptr, Value *Idx, const std::string &Name = "", Instruction *InsertBefore = 0) { - return new(2/*FIXME*/) GetElementPtrInst(Ptr, Idx, Name, InsertBefore); + return new(2) GetElementPtrInst(Ptr, Idx, Name, InsertBefore); } What is the magic "2"? +GetElementPtrInst::GetElementPtrInst(const GetElementPtrInst &GEPI) + : Instruction(reinterpret_ca...

On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 22:44 -0600, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > To create a new CallInst I used to call the following constructor: > > CallInst(Value *F, const std::vector<Value*> &Par, const std::string > &Name = "", Instruction *InsertBefore = 0); > > However, it seems as though that constructor has been removed. I assume > that I'm suppossed to use the following constructor, but I can't figure > out what to pass as the Args parameter (the second parameter). > > CallInst (Value *F, Value *const *Args, uns...

...nction()->getName()=="puts") { errs() <<III->getCalledFunction()->getName()<<" function found!\n"; callcheck->insertBefore(II); errs() <<"INSERT SUCCEEDED!!!!!!!!\n"; } else {...

The GEP constructor does not assert that the source and destination types match. Of course, this is incorrect and causes random failures somewhere down the line. Could I add general sanity checks to the GEP constructor? In general, is an Instruction allowed to be in an inconsistent state? If so, is there some well known method to "verify" whether an instruction is consistent or not?

...dFunction()->getName()=="puts") >> { >> errs() >> <<III->getCalledFunction()->getName()<<" function found!\n"; >> >> callcheck->insertBefore(II); >> errs() <<"INSERT >> SUCCEEDED!!!!!!!!\n"; >> } >> else >>...

...Spencer wrote: > On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 22:44 -0600, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: >> To create a new CallInst I used to call the following constructor: >> >> CallInst(Value *F, const std::vector<Value*> &Par, const std::string >> &Name = "", Instruction *InsertBefore = 0); >> >> However, it seems as though that constructor has been removed. I assume >> that I'm suppossed to use the following constructor, but I can't figure >> out what to pass as the Args parameter (the second parameter). >> >> CallInst (Value *F, V...

...amp;III->getCalledFunction()->getName()=="puts") > { > errs() > <<III->getCalledFunction()->getName()<<" function found!\n"; > > callcheck->insertBefore(II); > errs() <<"INSERT > SUCCEEDED!!!!!!!!\n"; > } > else > { >...

Thomas B. Jablin wrote: > Hi, > I have added an insertAfter method to the ilist and Instruction classes. The methods are implemented as efficiently as the currently existing insert and insertBefore methods. The insertAfter method was created to mirror a similar method in another compiler in order to ease an ongoing port. The patch, which is very small is included as AddInsertBefore.patch. Additionally, I wrote a small test pass which demonstrates the correctness of insertAfter and have attach...