search for: setinsertpoint

...nstructions will pick up a bogus debug loc from the IP. E.g this is what happens with SCEVExpander::expandCodeFor(). There's no way to fix this bug without changing IRBuilder's behavior. >>>> >>>> # Solutions >>>> >>>> 1. Add a method called SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc() which behaves identically to the current SetInsertPoint(). Change SetInsertPoint() so that it doesn't change the current debug loc. >>>> 2. Add a boolean argument to SetInsertPoint() called UpdateDbgLoc which defaults to false. Only change the current debug loc if Updat...

...insertion point, all generated instructions will pick up a bogus debug loc from the IP. E.g this is what happens with SCEVExpander::expandCodeFor(). There's no way to fix this bug without changing IRBuilder's behavior. >> >> # Solutions >> >> 1. Add a method called SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc() which behaves identically to the current SetInsertPoint(). Change SetInsertPoint() so that it doesn't change the current debug loc. >> 2. Add a boolean argument to SetInsertPoint() called UpdateDbgLoc which defaults to false. Only change the current debug loc if UpdateDbgLoc...

...call that changes the builder's insertion point, all generated instructions will pick up a bogus debug loc from the IP. E.g this is what happens with SCEVExpander::expandCodeFor(). There's no way to fix this bug without changing IRBuilder's behavior. # Solutions 1. Add a method called SetInsertPointAndDebugLoc() which behaves identically to the current SetInsertPoint(). Change SetInsertPoint() so that it doesn't change the current debug loc. 2. Add a boolean argument to SetInsertPoint() called UpdateDbgLoc which defaults to false. Only change the current debug loc if UpdateDbgLoc is true....

So one way might look like this: IRBuilder<> Builder(&*BB); // BB = Function::iterator OR IRBuilder<> Builder(CallInst->getParent()); Builder.SetInsertPoint(CallInst); InstructionClass *YourNewInstruction = builder.CreateInstructionClass(.....); // InstructionClass = type of instruction you are inserting -Ryan On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > Take a look at IRBuilder and SetInsertPoint(). >...

...ype, llvm::Function::PrivateLinkage, "c", module.get()); // Body of the `a` function { /// @brief Set entry label llvm::BasicBlock *block = llvm::BasicBlock::Create(context, "entry", aFun); /// @brief builder llvm::IRBuilder<> builder(block); builder.SetInsertPoint(block); llvm::CallInst *cCall = builder.CreateCall(cFun, {}, "c"); llvm::Value *res = cCall; builder.CreateRet(res); llvm::verifyFunction(*aFun); } // Body of the `b` function { /// @brief Set entry label llvm::BasicBlock *block = llvm::BasicBlock::Create(cont...

I don't think it's the same problem as you described. By printing I meant calling printf function and passing my global variable as one of the arguments. My code: Instruction* InstructionVisitor::incrementGlobalKey(Instruction* I) { IRBuilder<> Builder(I->getContext()); Builder.SetInsertPoint(I->getNextNode()); GlobalVariable* key = I->getModule()->getNamedGlobal("globalKey"); if (key) { LoadInst* load = Builder.CreateLoad(key); Value* inc = Builder.CreateAdd(load, Builder.getInt64(1)); StoreInst* store = Builder.CreateStore(inc, key); return store; } return I; } I...

...sicBlock *const unwind_blk = BasicBlock::Create( ctx, "unwind", fn ); > builder.CreateInvoke( ctor, normal_blk, unwind_blk, ctor_args ); > > // Call object's destructor. > BasicBlock *const dtor_blk = BasicBlock::Create( ctx, "dtor", fn ); > builder.SetInsertPoint( dtor_blk ); > builder.CreateCall( dtor, void_obj_ptr ); > builder.CreateBr( unwind_blks_.back() ); > > // Catch exception, if any. > builder.SetInsertPoint( unwind_blk ); > LandingPadInst *const lpad = builder.CreateLandingPad( > caught_result_type_, personali...

...'m quite new to LLVM and I want to update value of global variable in LLVM IR. I created new global variable in ModulePass: bool runOnModule(llvm::Module &M) { IRBuilder<> Builder(M.getContext()); Instruction *I = &*inst_begin(M.getFunction("main")); Builder.SetInsertPoint(I); M.getOrInsertGlobal("globalKey", Builder.getInt64Ty()); GlobalVariable* gVar = M.getNamedGlobal("globalKey"); gVar->setLinkage(GlobalValue::InternalLinkage); gVar->setAlignment(Align(8)); gVar->setInitializer(Builder.getInt64(0)); gVar->se...

...consistent. The fact that we're trying to optimize instructions as we insert them makes that trickier, but I still think that is the right invariant to have. I don't see why (2) would be particularly ugly though (perhaps I'm not being sufficiently imaginative :) ). I think IRBuilder::SetInsertPoint(Instruction *) is safe, since it always sets BB and IP in sync with each other. So I think we basically need to sync things at restoreIP() (which is called only once in the file) and at places that potentially move insertion points (like hoistIVInc) using something like "Builder.SetInsertPoin...

...e bugs" and what we can do is come up with intelligent approaches to finding where they are likely to hide. For example, one possibility is to audit all the places that call SetCurrentDebugLocation; my grep through llvm/lib found 43 instances, which is not horrible. We can make sure that the SetInsertPoint/SetCurrentDebugLocation sequence is correct in all those places. If we can identify components that do depend on the debug line table (like fuzzer and sanitizers) then running a bunch of their tests with –use-unknown-locations turned on by default might also help, after we address the .cfi thing....

...g info > > > > I looked through all the places that call SetCurrentDebugLocation(). > Aside from the one place you already found, there are some > suspicious-looking sequences in LoopVectorizer.cpp. Other than that they > look okay to me. > > > > It turns out that `SetInsertPoint(Instruction *I)` automatically does > `SetCurrentDebugLocation(I->getDebugLoc())` so the problem arises when > you don't want the same debug location as the insertion point. And the > IRBuilder ctor that takes an Instruction* does SetInsertPoint(I) so some > places are calling S...

...[llvm-dev] Libfuzzer depending on uninitialized debug info I looked through all the places that call SetCurrentDebugLocation(). Aside from the one place you already found, there are some suspicious-looking sequences in LoopVectorizer.cpp. Other than that they look okay to me. It turns out that `SetInsertPoint(Instruction *I)` automatically does `SetCurrentDebugLocation(I->getDebugLoc())` so the problem arises when you don't want the same debug location as the insertion point. And the IRBuilder ctor that takes an Instruction* does SetInsertPoint(I) so some places are calling SetCurrentDebugLocati...

On Mar 23, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Paul J. Lucas wrote: > On Mar 23, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> Let's take your example. You will have code that looks like this: >> >> extern "C" void thunk_item_M_delete( void *v_that ) { >> item *that = 0; >> try { >> that = static_cast<item*>( v_that ); >>

I have a question about inserting instructions into the LLVM IR. I can insert instructions, but my operands do not have the right type, so it fails an assertion at runtime. I am trying to insert an immediate load instructions, as a means of claiming a new register. Here is what I do: Builder.SetInsertPoint(LLVMBB, I); // The following line looks to me like it would have a chance of loading either // address 5, or else immediate value 5. Unfortunately, it does neither. It compiles // but crashes at runtime, that the type of the operand is incompatible Instruction *newI=Builder.CreateLoad(5,&q...

I'm trying to insert some instructions before each function calls (before arguments push): lea %EAX, label ----- new instructions mov [ESP+stacksize], %EAX ----- new instructions push arg1 push arg2 ... push argn call callee_name I am a newbie to LLVM. I tried to use buildMI() to insert the instructions in the lowercall() function. But I couldn't

...em. InsertPointGuard uses AssertingVT for debug builds. LLDB gets confused also. The first listing shows that the instance of InsertPointGuard is messed up: 96 auto check = _builder.GetInsertBlock(); 97 { 98 llvm::IRBuilderBase::InsertPointGuard guard{_builder}; -> 99 _builder.SetInsertPoint(checkBB); 100 } 101 102 if (_builder.GetInsertBlock() != check) (lldb) p _builder (llvm::IRBuilder<true, llvm::ConstantFolder, llvm::IRBuilderDefaultInserter<true> >) $4 = { llvm::IRBuilderBase = { CurDbgLocation = { Loc = { Ref = { MD = 0x00000000...

...:18 PM, Ryan Taylor via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> So one way might look like this: >> >> IRBuilder<> Builder(&*BB); // BB = Function::iterator OR IRBuilder<> >> Builder(CallInst->getParent()); >> Builder.SetInsertPoint(CallInst); >> InstructionClass *YourNewInstruction = builder.CreateInstructionClass(.....); >> // InstructionClass = type of instruction you are inserting >> >> >> I’m not sure how the IRBuilder would work at the MI level, as Shucai was >> asking. >> >&g...

..., is there some part of the C++ API that is not exposed by the C API? 2) Do the Ocaml/Haskell bindings follow that language's naming conventions? Or LLVM's? For e.g., in Python method names are usually like_this. So which of these are preferred: Builder.set_insert_point() or Builder.SetInsertPoint() ? Regards, -MD.

Thank you for your answer. But there is still a problem. You seem correct about how to define a constant operand. So I added it into my code, like so: Builder.SetInsertPoint(LLVMBB, I); Constant *C = ConstantInt::get(APInt(32, 5, false)); Instruction *newI=Builder.CreateLoad(C,""); It compiles. But it still aborts at runtime with a complaint that the type is not right. This leads me to think that immediate loads are not generated with the Cre...

...ructions into the LLVM IR. I can > insert instructions, but my operands do not have the right type, so it fails > an assertion at runtime. > > I am trying to insert an immediate load instructions, as a means of > claiming a new register. > > Here is what I do: > Builder.SetInsertPoint(LLVMBB, I); > > // The following line looks to me like it would have a chance o! f loading > either > // address 5, or else immediate value 5. Unfortunately, it does neither. It > compiles > // but crashes at runtime, that the type of the operand is incompatible > Instr...