search for: invokeinsts

What is the difference between a CallInst and an InvokeInst in LLVM? Is an InvokeInst a CallInst that can throw an exception? Thanks, Ryan

While improving ADCE, i notice that for declare i32 @strlen(i8*) readnone define i32 @test() { ; invoke of pure function should not be deleted! invoke i32 @strlen( i8* null ) readnone to label %Cont unwind label %Other ; <i32>:1 [#uses=0] Cont: ; preds = %0 ret i32 0 Other: ; preds = %0 %exn = landingpad {i8*, i32} personality i32 (...)* @__gxx_personality_v0

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:32 AM Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Going to keep this RFC short and to the point: >> >> TerminatorInst doesn't pull its weight in the type system. There is >> essentially a single

Going to keep this RFC short and to the point: TerminatorInst doesn't pull its weight in the type system. There is essentially a single relevant API -- iterating successors. There is no other interesting aspect shared -- the interface itself just dispatches to specific instructions to be implemented. On the flip side, CallInst and InvokeInst have *massive* amounts of code shared and struggle

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:32 AM Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> Going to keep this RFC short and to the

Is it okay to pass null values to the destinations of InvokeInst::Create? I checked the code and it looks like it'd be okay, but the Create method doesn't make them optional, so I'm uncertain. Perhaps a specific Create function without destinations can be added to make it clear that it's okay (of course assuming you eventually call setNormal/UnwindDest). -- edA-qa mort-ora-y --

I'm about to commit my changes to update the InvokeInst constructors to work like CallInst. Untill I get all of the llvm-gcc changes in, there will be a small window where llvm-gcc won't build. This shouldn't take more than 15-20 minutes depending on how fast subversion is. -Dave

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, David Greene wrote: > I'm about to commit my changes to update the InvokeInst constructors to work > like CallInst. Untill I get all of the llvm-gcc changes in, there will be a > small window where llvm-gcc won't build. This shouldn't take more than > 15-20 minutes depending on how fast subversion is. svn has atomic commits: can you commit both at

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Going to keep this RFC short and to the point: > > TerminatorInst doesn't pull its weight in the type system. There is > essentially a single relevant API -- iterating successors. There is no > other interesting aspect shared -- the interface itself just dispatches to

> On May 17, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Going to keep this RFC short and to the point: > > TerminatorInst doesn't pull its weight in the type system. There is essentially a single relevant API -- iterating successors. There is no other interesting aspect shared -- the interface itself just dispatches to

On Monday 27 August 2007 13:17, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, David Greene wrote: > > I'm about to commit my changes to update the InvokeInst constructors to > > work like CallInst. Untill I get all of the llvm-gcc changes in, there > > will be a small window where llvm-gcc won't build. This shouldn't take > > more than 15-20 minutes depending

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:26 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On May 17, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Going to keep this RFC short and to the point: > > > > TerminatorInst doesn't pull its weight in the type system. There is >

Hi all, Sorry for the inconvenient about the previous post. The files were not attached. So I put them here again. I am a newbie in LLVM and I am trying to replace the function like: old function || new function ============================== ========= int haha(int a) { int haha(int a, char* ID) { ===> }

Erick, After some experimentation, I'd prefer the closed system. LLVM has some type peculiarities like the commonality between CallInst and InvokeInst. I find that the closed type system lets me express such constraints more naturally. Expressing these constraints explicitly in the open system involves annotating the C++ class hierarchy with extra variants which are unnecessary in

+1, sounds like a great idea And if you're volunteering to do the work, even better! :) Philip p.s. Any reason we can't preserve a TerminatorInst type with an isa function which just returns true for all our terminators but without having terminators actually inherit from it?  If so, we preserve the bit of a "type safety" for a variable which is expected to always point to

Are there any instructions that aren't terminators now, but will become terminators with this change? I'm wondering if this is going to affect reading old bitcode, and if so, how it will be handled. -Krzysztof On 5/17/2018 4:03 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote: > Going to keep this RFC short and to the point: > > TerminatorInst doesn't pull its weight in the type

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > After some experimentation, I'd prefer the closed system. LLVM has some type > peculiarities like the commonality between CallInst and InvokeInst. I find > that the closed type system lets me express such constraints more naturally. > Expressing these constraints explicitly in the open

Hi David, Sorry to bother you, but I would like to get some suggestions on your recent work of token type. I’m currently working on changing gc.statepoint to return a token type instead of a i32 type. The reason is that with the current implementation, gc.statepoint could potentially be fed into PHI nodes, and break RewriteStatepointsForGC pass later. Using token type would help us to avoid

On 05/17/2018 04:03 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote: > Going to keep this RFC short and to the point: > > TerminatorInst doesn't pull its weight in the type system. There is > essentially a single relevant API -- iterating successors. There is no > other interesting aspect shared -- the interface itself just > dispatches to specific instructions to be implemented.

Hi everyone: The code I am analyzing is : int main() { int i = 0; printf("hello world!"); printf( "%d" , i ); } I want to get each place where printf is called, and the argument used during that call. so I write llvm pass code like: void Myfunction( Function & F){ for( Function::iterator b = F.begin() , be = F.end() ;