search for: take_addres

...now is to populate > worklists, which allows us to do: > > std::set<Instruction*> WorkList(inst_begin(F), inst_end(F)); Maybe this can be rewritten like; std::set<Instruction*> WorkList; std::transform(insn_begin(F), insn_end(F), inserter(WorkList, WorkList.begin(), take_address); given proper definition of take_addres. Or maybe manual initialization will okay. So, if you think making inst_iterator's operator* return reference to instruction is better than making it return reference to pointer, I can take a look at this. - Volodya

While working on my optimization pass (a Function Pass), I try to replicate a call instruction and insert it at some earlier location (similar to LICM). However, the instruction I am trying to replicate has dependencies on an uncertain number of instructions that are used to generate an address. A simple example (IR segment): define void @foo() nounwind { entry: %a = alloca i32, align 4;

...ich allows us to do: > > > > std::set<Instruction*> WorkList(inst_begin(F), inst_end(F)); > > Maybe this can be rewritten like; > > std::set<Instruction*> WorkList; > std::transform(insn_begin(F), insn_end(F), > inserter(WorkList, WorkList.begin(), take_address); > > given proper definition of take_addres. Or maybe manual initialization will > okay. > > So, if you think making inst_iterator's operator* return reference to > instruction is better than making it return reference to pointer, I can take > a look at this. I do think...

Dear Chuck, I haven't read all of the details, but it seems that what you need to do is to clone defs before you clone any uses of the def. To do that, you want to iterate over the instructions in dominator-tree order. To do that, you first construct the dominator tree (there is an LLVM analysis pass that does that). Then, you iterate over the basic blocks in the dominator tree from

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > and since result of *it is considered to be rvalue it can't be accepted by > this operator. The complete discussion is in > > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1385.htm > > I'd suggest to apply the following patch which makes operator* return > reference to pointer. It makes my code compile and the rest

...> > std::set<Instruction*> WorkList(inst_begin(F), inst_end(F)); > > > > Maybe this can be rewritten like; > > > > std::set<Instruction*> WorkList; > > std::transform(insn_begin(F), insn_end(F), > > inserter(WorkList, WorkList.begin(), take_address); > > > > given proper definition of take_addres. Or maybe manual initialization > > will okay. > > > > So, if you think making inst_iterator's operator* return reference to > > instruction is better than making it return reference to pointer, I can > &gt...

Hello, I think there's a rather subtle problem with the inst_iterator. It declares its iterator category as std::bidirectional_iterator_tag but C++ standard requirements for forward iterator (which are included in requirements for bidirection iterator), say that the type of expression *r; should be T&, where 'r' is the iterator and T is its value type. The inst_iterator,