search for: op_end

...ould you suggest having LLVM add code after each instruction to get this, or is there another way to do this? I've tried writing some code, as follows (where i is an inst_iterator, but the results are not what I would have expected: for (User::op_iterator j = i->op_begin(), f = i->op_end(); j != f; + +j) { std::cerr << "Operand: " << (j->getUser())->getOperand(0) << "\n"; } or for (User::op_iterator j = i->op_begin(), f = i->op_end(); j != f; + +j) { std::cerr << "Operand: " << j << "\n...

... here is some generally useful information I should have cc'd to llvmdev in the first place ... -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:41:55 -0500 (CDT) From: Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> To: Sean Peisert <peisert at gmail.com> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Getting started with LLVM

Hi, I want to retrieve the variable names used in a statement, I tried the following snippet, but it only gives me the variable named in llvm bitcode. I need the variable name in source code. for (auto op = I.op_begin(); op != I.op_end(); op++) { Value* v = op->get(); StringRef name = v->getName(); } Is there specific documentation I can refer to implement this? Thanks -- *Ridwan Shariffdeen* Graduate Student | National University of Singapore -------------- next part ----...

...hing like: %a = add i32 %x, %y it's common to think "Well, I've got the Instruction* which is on the right hand side, how do I get the %a on the left hand side"? The answer is that the whole thing is actually: %I->getName() = I->getOpcode() I->op_begin()..I->op_end() There is only the Instruction *I. It _is_ the value that it produces. There is no register it's being stored into, that Instruction* is itself the definition of the register! Note that registers are immutable (being a static single assignment form) and that we have an infinite register s...

Hi Nick, I parsed your message again carefully and did some experiments. I guess the: for (User::op_iterator i = I->op_begin(), e = I->op_end(); i != e; ++i) { } iterates over the operands of the instruction "I", which are as you said, *other* instructions. But if I want to get other information about the instruction, say the type of the operands, then I still need to figure out how to do that, e.g. via the I->getSrcTy()...

...lt;Value>(I)); if (!call) continue; Function* callee = call->getCalledFunction(); if (!callee && !callee->isDeclaration()) continue; if (callee->getName() != func2.getName()) continue; SmallVector<Value*, 16> callargs(call->op_begin(), call->op_end()); callargs.insert(callargs.begin(), ConstantInt::get(Type::getInt32Ty(context), call->getNumArgOperands())); callargs.insert(callargs.begin(), callee->getName()); CallInst* newcall = CallInst::Create(launch, callargs, "", call); newcall->takeNam...

...nt(); + BasicBlock::iterator BI = &I; + assert(BI != BB->end() && "Woohooa"); + ++BI; + if (BI != BB->end()) { + ReturnInst *RI = dyn_cast<ReturnInst>(BI); + if (RI) { + if (RI->getReturnValue()==0 || + std::find(RI->op_begin(), RI->op_end(), + (Value*)&I) != RI->op_end()) { + IsNextInstRet=true; + } + } + } + return IsNextInstRet; +} + Some stylistic nitpicks. Please write the comments as: /// IsNextInstructionReturn - Check whether.. + assert(BI != BB->end() && "Woohooa&...

The patch is against revision 42247. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tailcall-src.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 62639 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070923/4770302f/attachment.obj>

...v at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I want to retrieve the variable names used in a statement, I tried the following snippet, > but it only gives me the variable named in llvm bitcode. I need the variable name in source code. > > for (auto op = I.op_begin(); op != I.op_end(); op++) { > Value* v = op->get(); > StringRef name = v->getName(); > } > > Is there specific documentation I can refer to implement this? > If the source language is something clang knows about, you may have to implement th...

Sir, I am using the op_begin and op_end iterator for iterating over the operands as mentioned below. for (User::op_iterator operand=j->op_begin(),operand_end=j->op_end();operand!=operand_end;++operand){ Value *v=operand->get(); const Type *t=v->getType(); cerr<<endl<<" operand: "<<"[ &quot...

...> > Hi, > > > > I want to retrieve the variable names used in a statement, I tried the > following snippet, > > but it only gives me the variable named in llvm bitcode. I need the > variable name in source code. > > > > for (auto op = I.op_begin(); op != I.op_end(); op++) { > > Value* v = op->get(); > > StringRef name = v->getName(); > > } > > > > Is there specific documentation I can refer to implement this? > > > > If the source language is something clang know...

Hi Nick, Perhaps I am confused. What is the best way to extract information from instructions ? Is it via the, say: for (User::op_iterator i = I->op_begin(), e = I->op_end(); i != e; ++i) .... I am not sure what happens next, e.g. to the variable 'i', you should know what part of the instruction this is and cast it to the necessary type. For example, I am parsing the 'inttoptr' instruction. In that case the loop iterates only once, but then, I...

...if (!callee && !callee->isDeclaration()) continue; if (callee->getName() != func2.getName()) continue; SmallVector<Value*, 16> callargs(call->op_begin(), call->op_end()); callargs.insert(callargs.begin(), ConstantInt::get(Type::getInt32Ty(context), call->getNumArgOperands())); c...

...to be aware of the new kinds of ValueTypes so that they could handle them properly, but once that's done, it would allow vector nodes to be handled consistently between pre-legalize and post-legalize, without obscure constructs like ... blahblah->getNumOperands()-2 ... ... *(blahblah->op_end()-1) ... to get the vector length and/or element type in the pre-legalize form. It would make -view-legalize-dags and earlier DAG drawings a lot easier to read in DAGS with vector nodes, because they wouldn't need to be edges from each vector node up to the common element type node and vector...

...if (!LIOps.empty()) { > // NLI + LI + {Start,+,Step} --> NLI + {LI+Start,+,Step} > LIOps.push_back(AddRec->getStart()); > > SmallVector<const SCEV *, 4> AddRecOps(AddRec->op_begin(), > AddRec->op_end()); > - AddRecOps[0] = getAddExpr(LIOps); > + AddRecOps[0] = getAddExpr(LIOps, Flags); > > // Build the new addrec. Propagate the NUW and NSW flags if both the > // outer add and the inner addrec are guaranteed to have no > overflow. > // Always p...

...again. But I am still stuck in some problems. Constant *Cstr = GV->getInitializer(); After that, I tried to use a. for(unsigned i=0;i<Cstr->getNumOperands();++i){ Cstr->getOperand(i); } b. for(User::op_iterator I=Cstr->op_begin(),E=Cstr->op_end(); I!=E;++I){ std::cerr<<*I; } From either a or b, I could get each element of Global Variable. Supposedly, I will use my arithmetic like XOR etc to encode/hide the string. But I cannot use XOR, I mean I tried (*I)^0x33, it doesn't work. I tried op_xor, but I...

​Hi, Would you be able to kindly check and assist with the IndVarSimplify / SCEV problem I got in the latest LLVM, please? Sometimes IndVarSimplify may not eliminate narrow IV's when there actually exists such a possibility. This may affect other LLVM passes and result in inefficient code. The reproducing test 'indvar_test.cpp' is attached. The problem is with the second

...// Loop over all of the values that the instruction uses. If there are // instructions being used, add them to the worklist, because they might // go dead after this one is removed. SmallVector<Instruction *, 8> Operands; for (User::op_iterator OI = I->op_begin(), E = I->op_end(); OI != E; ++OI) if (Instruction *Used = dyn_cast<Instruction>(*OI)) Operands.push_back(Used); // Remove the instruction. I->eraseFromParent(); // Only add the operands to the worklist if their uses are now empty, // to avoid needlessly revisiting instructi...

...entPtrInst(Ptr, Idx, Name, InsertBefore); } What is the magic "2"? +GetElementPtrInst::GetElementPtrInst(const GetElementPtrInst &GEPI) + : Instruction(reinterpret_cast<const Type*>(GEPI.getType()), GetElementPtr, + OperandTraits<GetElementPtrInst>::op_end(this) - GEPI.getNumOperands(), + GEPI.getNumOperands()) { + Use *OL = OperandList; + Use *GEPIOL = GEPI.OperandList; + for (unsigned i = 0, E = NumOperands; i != E; ++i) + OL[i].init(GEPIOL[i], this); +} Please just move methods like this out of line when possible. +DEFINE_T...

...essor/successor instructions (inputs/outputs), to register > their connectivity (edges). Right? Well the GraphTraits in DataFlow.h are really simple, LLVM's graph algorithms expect a child_begin()/child_end(), so DataFlow.h only maps child_begin/child_end to use_begin/use_end, and op_begin/op_end for the Def-Use, and Use-Def graphs respectively. That however doesn't know of any basicblock boundaries, it enumerates *all* uses of a value, so I think that writing out a full DFG is easier than writing out a partial one. > > > thanks, > Ioannis > > > > PS: By the way...