search for: returninsts

Hi all, I am trying to write a pass where i am creating a clone of a function (the only difference being, the new function returns void , instead of any value). I am creating a new Function Type with a void return type (rest being the same as original function), and using this i am creating a new function body. Then, i clone the body of the old function into new function, but when ever i

Hi, I'm gonna try to give some feedback, but I have only been working with LLVM for a few days, so don't take what I'm saying without verifying :-) > BasicBlock *ProgSlicer::CloneBasicBlock(const BasicBlock *BB, > DenseMap<const Value*, Value*> &ValueMap, > const char *NameSuffix, Function *F) { > > BasicBlock

Greetings, I'm working on getting our compiler's interface to LLVM to mimic the way the LLVM-GCC inserts instructions to generate AMD64 ABI compliant code. I'm trying to create ret i64 %mrv, double %double_mrv37 which is basically what LLVM-GCC puts out. However if I use lcc -march=cpp to get the API code I need it has the following line:

Dan, Thanks for the info. Unfortunately for the time being we are using (for the most part) the 2.3 release (with a couple of patches that Dave Greene has applied). The first-class aggregates is one of the things we don't yet have in the LLVM we're working with. I'll look again to see if there's a ReturnInst::Create( ) which I can pass an array of llvm::Value *'s to,

Hi Tony, I just checked LLVM 2.3 and ReturnInst has these: static ReturnInst* Create(Value * const* retVals, unsigned N, Instruction *InsertBefore) static ReturnInst* Create(Value * const* retVals, unsigned N, BasicBlock *InsertAtEnd) which are what you're looking for. In LLVM trunk, MRV-syntax LLVM assembly files and bitcode

Hi, this question might be a bit silly: apart from the language reference(http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#switch-instruction) page, are there additional rules for a regular llvm frontend to generate llvm IRs? There are a few cases that I got from clang/llvm-gcc/dragonegg when compiling *C* source code into llvm IR: 1. It seems that there is ONLY ONE ReturnInst(and NO InvokeInst) for such llvm

...are a few cases that I got from clang/llvm-gcc/dragonegg when > compiling *C* source code into llvm IR: > > 1. It seems that there is ONLY ONE ReturnInst(and NO InvokeInst) for such > llvm IR; is it legal to add other *ReturnInst*s when transforming? An LLVM function can have multiple ReturnInsts as long as each one terminates a basic block. There is a transform (UnifyExitNodes, IIRC) that will take a function with multiple ReturnInsts and create one with a single ReturnInst. Having a single ReturnInst (exit node) simplifies other analyses. > > 2. Is it possible for a frontend...

...-gcc/dragonegg when >> compiling *C* source code into llvm IR: >> >> >> 1. It seems that there is ONLY ONE ReturnInst(and NO InvokeInst) for such >> llvm IR; is it legal to add other *ReturnInst*s when transforming? >> > > An LLVM function can have multiple ReturnInsts as long as each one > terminates a basic block. There is a transform (UnifyExitNodes, IIRC) that > will take a function with multiple ReturnInsts and create one with a single > ReturnInst. Having a single ReturnInst (exit node) simplifies other > analyses. > > Thanks so much, Jo...

On Sep 12, 2008, at 9:40 AM, Tony Scudiero wrote: > Greetings, Hi Tony, This is an area that's undergone some changes recently. The LLVM 2.3 multiple-return-value (MRV) syntax has been replaced by the first-class aggregates syntax in SVN trunk. > > I'm working on getting our compiler's interface to LLVM to mimic > the > way the LLVM-GCC inserts instructions to

...Function about this. What's wrong with this? ======================= 1. Functions without personalities pay the space-cost for them. 2. We handle personalities differently from prefix and prologue data. 3. Suppose N functions share the same prefix or prologue data. We create N different ReturnInsts to point to the same thing. I think that's wasteful. 4. These hidden ReturnInsts effectively make a Function an indirect user of its optional data. This relationship should be made explicit to avoid bugs. Proposal: Introduce a new Constant, llvm::IndirectUser =============================...

On 5/17/2011 11:37 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi George, > >> Does llvm provide a way to determine instructions that cause control to >> leave functions? For example, return statements and exit statements cause >> control exit out of function. > there is no "exit" statement. > > I am looking for something similar to basic block >> terminators.

Hi everyone, I am building a binary translator, and try to do block chaining. LLVM version : 3.1 my machine : x86-32 bit, Linux Before each *LLVM IR returnInst constantValue*, I insert a call instruction & a returnInst which looks like %x = call @G ; ret %x; then remove the *LLVM IR returnInst constantValue* The initializer of @G is a function which has prototype int f(struct MyType*

Hi, Some LLVM classes (e.g. ReturnInst) have explicit constructors with at least two parameters (with no default arguments). Why is that? E.g. what are they trying to prevent? -- Gaby -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150314/4d4cc6cc/attachment.html>

Thank you Ahmad, I figured out that, although the type of both p(oInst) and p(nInst) were the same, I had to: for (unsigned int i = 0; i < callOInst->getNumArgOperands(); i++) { callOInst->getArgOperand(i)->mutateType(callNInst->getArgOperand(i)->getType()); } that solves the issue at the calling instruction in the main function, but now I see that *linkModules* does not work

Hi Philip, Thank you very much for your answer, the vector declaration example worked. I'm pretty sure the ValueToValueMapTy is the last thing I need because I even saw there is another function that could help me llvm*:*:RemapFunction <http://llvm.org/doxygen/namespacellvm.html#addf0183e92893bdbcde00fc9091dda93>; but my problem is that I don't know how to populate the

Hello and thanks for the answer, I'm still facing issues, I'll do my best to explain my situation, as I explained, I have two modules, each one with its own main and functions, I would like to replace in the *oldModule* a function call that is calling *foo2* (defined in *oldModule*) to instead call *foo3*, which is defined in the *refModule. *So in summary, I have: 1. The original

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) { ===> }

Hi Philip, Thanks for the reference, I was able to follow it and copy the code that I saw necessary, but I still have some issues (references are still not updated). I created the function: void populateVMap(llvm::ValueToValueMapTy &VMap, llvm::Function *fOld, llvm::Function *fNew) { llvm::Function::arg_iterator DestI = fOld->arg_begin(); for (llvm::Function::const_arg_iterator J =

Hi All, Does llvm provide a way to determine instructions that cause control to leave functions? For example, return statements and exit statements cause control exit out of function. I am looking for something similar to basic block terminators. Thanks. George -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi George, > Does llvm provide a way to determine instructions that cause control to > leave functions? For example, return statements and exit statements cause > control exit out of function. there is no "exit" statement. I am looking for something similar to basic block > terminators. Thanks. Control can leave a function either (1) due to a return instruction