search for: other_func

Hi everyone, I am trying to replace the call of a certain function with a call to another function. It would for example replace the following: %call = tail call noalias i8* @func(i64 10) by %call = tail call noalias i8* @other_func(i64 10) I managed to declare other_func correctly but I am having troubles to understand how I should proceed to do the replacement. I tried to use ReplaceInstWithInst function as follows: CallInst *call_to_other_func_inst = IRBuilder.CreateCall(ptr_to_other_func, args); ReplaceInstWithInst(call...

...erre Gagelin via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I am trying to replace the call of a certain function with a call to > another function. It would for example replace the following: > > %call = tail call noalias i8* @func(i64 10) > by > %call = tail call noalias i8* @other_func(i64 10) > > I managed to declare other_func correctly but I am having troubles to > understand how I should proceed to do the replacement. > > I tried to use ReplaceInstWithInst function as follows: > > CallInst *call_to_other_func_inst = > IRBuilder.CreateCall(ptr_to_other_...

...quot;hello" in func ~bar:v But as a special case, if the variable is called bar already, then this works: let bar = "hello" in func ~bar because ~bar is short for ~bar:bar (and the same for optional parameters like ?foo). This leads naturally to code that looks like: let other_func ~foo ~bar ?baz = func ~foo ~bar ?baz Issue 2: Optional arguments are implemented as option types (eg. None, Some foo), except when defaults are used If a function is defined as: let func ?foo ~bar () = ... then bar is passed as an ordinary parameter, it's just that at co...

On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 11:13:42PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > let other_func ~foo ~bar ?baz = > func ~foo ~bar ?baz Actually there is a third issue which is what makes this even more confusing. ?baz (when calling a function) expects that baz (the binding) is an option, and passes either nothing (if baz = None) or the optional argument (if baz <> None). In ef...

Hi. Thank you for comments on asm code paravirtualization. Its direction is getting clear. Although it hasn't been finished yet, I'd like to start discussion on ia64 intrinsics paravirtualization. This patch set is just for discussion so that it is a subset of xen Linux/ia64 domU paravirtualization, not self complete. You can get the full patched tree by typing git clone

Hi. Thank you for comments on asm code paravirtualization. Its direction is getting clear. Although it hasn't been finished yet, I'd like to start discussion on ia64 intrinsics paravirtualization. This patch set is just for discussion so that it is a subset of xen Linux/ia64 domU paravirtualization, not self complete. You can get the full patched tree by typing git clone