search for: mapvalues

> On 2014-Dec-18, at 01:43, Keno Fischer <kfischer at college.harvard.edu> wrote: > > Hi Duncan, > > I'm in the following situation for which this change caused an assertion failure: > > Three modules, let's say A B C > Two function, F in A, G in B > > Now I CloneFunction F into B (call the new function F') and inline F' into G. > Now,

Hello all When using llvm-ld to link several bitcode files produced by LLVM-GCC, I ran into the problem that the resulting linked file had missing dbg entries for AllocaInst values. After some digging I found that llvm::MapValue returns NULL when it encounters an AllocaInst. The attached trivial patch fixes the problem. Is this behaviour intended? Regards, Jacob -- Jacob Zimmermann Oracle

OK. About the error it’s a long story, so it’s probably better to pin some source code here. Below is a piece of code related to my problem, clipped from lib/Transforms/Utils/ValueMapper.cpp. I was wondering what “materialized” means here. Value *Mapper::mapBlockAddress(const BlockAddress &BA) { Function *F = cast<Function>(mapValue(BA.getFunction())); // F may not have

Hello All, I am having a problem with using CloneFunctionInto to clone a function that includes changing the type of a value using the VMap. Specifically, I am using the VMap to change the address space of values that have particular pointer types. The problem seems to be that RemapInstruction successfully changes the operands using the VMap, but the VTy member indicating the type of the

I don't use a function for do the mapping, it may be MapValue(). If it does not work, alias an int identifier for each basic block. Be aware because basic block cannot have the same name (getName) in the same function, but they might have the same name being in different functions. Therefore, take into account the function name as well. Good luck On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Rasha Omar

The `Metadata`/`Value` split (PR21532) landed in r223802 -- at least, the C++ side of it. This was a rocky day, but I suppose that's what I get for failing to stage the change in smaller pieces. As of r223916 (lldb), I'm not aware of any remaining (in-tree) breakage, so if I've missed some problem in the sea of buildbot errors, please flag me down. I'll follow up soon with

...quot;Female") > >>> I think it is quirky that `levels<-.factor` allows the duplicated >>> labels, whereas factor does not. > >>> I wrote a function rockchalk::combineLevels to simplify combining >>> levels, but most of the students here like plyr::mapvalues to do it. >>> The use of levels() can be tricky because one must enumerate all >>> values, not just the ones being changed. > >>> But I do understand Martin's point. Its been this way 25 years, it >>> won't change. :). > >> Well.. the above...

But I don't want to map only basic blocks, I need too to map the edges "the whole CFG of the function" Save the CFG of the function in another memory address and call it for example orgCFG and change the CFG by referencing to the orgCFG Thank you for help and patience On 6 June 2013 10:59, Alexandru Ionut Diaconescu < alexandruionutdiaconescu at gmail.com> wrote: > I

I think I understood that, but what I mean is what is the function responsible to do mapping is it MapValue() in ValueMapper.h? Thanks for your help On 6 June 2013 09:54, Alexandru Ionut Diaconescu < alexandruionutdiaconescu at gmail.com> wrote: > Map every basic block from the CFG to a set of integers. The successors > from the CFG can be used to make the edges in your simplified

>> That's a neat idea. To summarize: make Function have 3 optional operands. (For context -- Function currently has 1 optional operand, and my proposal is to move to 0.) >> >> Could someone else chime in on what they'd like to see? > > Sanjoy's idea makes sense to me, but only if we never need to add > prefix/prologue data after functions are created. Are

> On 2014 Dec 10, at 08:40, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:22:16PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >> The `Metadata`/`Value` split (PR21532) landed in r223802 -- at least, the >> C++ side of it. This was a rocky day, but I suppose that's what I get >> for failing to stage the change in smaller pieces. >>

> On 2015-Oct-12, at 10:41, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > > > Vedant Kumar wrote: >>>> That's a neat idea. To summarize: make Function have 3 optional operands. (For context -- Function currently has 1 optional operand, and my proposal is to move to 0.) >>>> >>>> Could someone else chime in on what

> On 2014 Dec 10, at 14:08, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:21:08AM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >> >>> On 2014 Dec 10, at 08:40, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:22:16PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >>>> The `Metadata`/`Value`

To extwnd on Martin 's explanation : In factor(), levels are the unique input values and labels the unique output values. So the function levels() actually displays the labels. Cheers Joris On 15 Jun 2017 17:15, "Martin Maechler" <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote: >>>>> Paul Johnson <pauljohn32 at gmail.com> >>>>> on Wed, 14 Jun

Bruce, Thanks for the explanation. But based on my inspection on the source code, it seems that materialization is related to lazily reading LLVM objects (Module, Function, etc.) into the memory from bitcode files, which is possibly useful during LTO. I’m not sure though. Pei From: <bruce.hoult at gmail.com> on behalf of Bruce Hoult <bruce at hoult.org> Date: Wednesday, June 28,

...quot;, "Male", "Female") > I think it is quirky that `levels<-.factor` allows the duplicated > labels, whereas factor does not. > I wrote a function rockchalk::combineLevels to simplify combining > levels, but most of the students here like plyr::mapvalues to do it. > The use of levels() can be tricky because one must enumerate all > values, not just the ones being changed. > But I do understand Martin's point. Its been this way 25 years, it > won't change. :). Well.. the above is a bit out of context. Your firs...

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 05:27:45PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: > +zalman at google.com > Hi Duncan, This patch plus another small change fixes the assertion failure for me. With the patch alone, the void* overload of addGarbageObject() was being used by MDNode::getTemporary(), so I had to cast the object as an MDNode*: diff --git a/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp b/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp

I committed: r224058 = 966942da9e68b59c31ce770e7f94c55a63482c6b r224060 = da75f7277e3a129aed8ef8aa4e0d84de40b76fd4 r224061 = f88e4c8e9171045454b2c8e05054c2af8da3fe4f Let me know if somehow you're still hitting the problem. r224061 removes leak detection entirely from `MachineInstr`. There aren't any leaks to be had there, since they're allocated in a custom allocator. They're

David Majnemer wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > > > On 2015-Oct-12, at 10:41, Sanjoy Das > <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com > <mailto:sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>> wrote: > > >

Here is a WIP patch as promised: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13829 It uses a hungoff uselist to store optional data as needed. Some early objections from Duncan: - An extra one-time malloc() is required to set personality functions. - We get and set personality functions frequently. This patch introduces a level of indirection which slows the common case down. Is this overhead