search for: use_empti

Hello David, I am having an issue with some custom intrinsics that return a token value: InstCombine deletes the users of the token but not the instruction that creates the token itself. The IR is still valid but it's wasted. The source of the issue is coming from an old patch of yours: commit 7204cff0a121ebc770cf81f7f94679ae7324daae Author: David Majnemer <david.majnemer at

Hi all, I have got a problem when I used the use_empty() member function while I used a global variable. I erase all the instructions which will use a global variable. Then I called the use_empty() on that global variable. I got no empty because a constantexpr use the global variable. I wonder whether there is any way to erase the constantexpr which is useless to me but occupying the global

Yes, it's still respected in this case, as the only instructions that will be deleted have been RAUW with undef. Originally, all instructions where RAUW but only non-EHPad were deleted (that means EHPad were RAUW but not deleted). Then it was later patched by not RAUW token instructions and now not deleting EHPad nor token instructions. My assumption is that the instructions we wanted to

Is this piece of code in DAGCombiner::visitLOAD removing a dead node? 06155 if (N->use_empty()) { 06156 removeFromWorkList(N); 06157 DAG.DeleteNode(N); 06158 } If it is, is there a reason it doesn't push its operands to the work list as done in line 974-975? 00970 // If N has no uses, it is dead. Make sure to revisit all N's operands once

I did not observe any assertion. In addition, the documentation ( https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#undefined-values) says: The string ‘undef’ can be used anywhere a constant is expected, and indicates that the user of the value may receive an unspecified bit-pattern. Undefined values may be of any type (other than ‘label’ or ‘ void’) and be used anywhere a constant is permitted. Either way,

Hi LLVMers, I am working on my llvm school project optimization pass. It's relatively simple, and it tries to remove redundant bitcast instructions followed by load instructions. At first, I'm using as input a bytecode generated by a simple Java test program. I've already found the reduntant instructions by looking at it's CFG, and I also could implement the code to

On Mar 12, 2009, at 1:47 AM, someguy wrote: > However, assertion messages are static strings, and don't include any > information about the particular object/value which caused the > assertion. In a 'data oriented' system like llvm, this makes it really > difficult to pinpoint which node is actually triggering the assertion. > > For example, in

Alysson wrote: > Hi LLVMers, > > I am working on my llvm school project optimization pass. It's > relatively simple, and it tries to remove redundant bitcast instructions > followed by load instructions. At first, I'm using as input a bytecode > generated by a simple Java test program. > I've already found the reduntant instructions by looking at it's

I'm trying to implement *MUL_LOHI for my processor. My processor has mulxss (e.g.) that gives the 32 high bits of a 64 bit multiply. I tried this in ios2ISelDAGToDAG.cpp: /// Mul/Div with two results case ISD::SMUL_LOHI: case ISD::UMUL_LOHI: { SDValue Op1 = Node->getOperand(0); SDValue Op2 = Node->getOperand(1); AddToISelQueue(Op1);

Hi all, There are many assertions sprinkled throughout the llvm codebase, which is a GoodThing. Most of the assertions even have informative messages, which is a BetterThing. However, assertion messages are static strings, and don't include any information about the particular object/value which caused the assertion. In a 'data oriented' system like llvm, this makes it really

Hi Akira, > Is this piece of code in DAGCombiner::visitLOAD removing a dead node? > > 06155 if (N->use_empty()) { > 06156 removeFromWorkList(N); > 06157 DAG.DeleteNode(N); > 06158 } yes. > If it is, is there a reason it doesn't push its operands to the work > list as done in line 974-975? > > 00970 // If N has no uses,

Hi, I had asked earlier from my another ID about duplicating a basic block, but that server is down for moment. I was given suggestion to use CloneBasicBlock, but when I used it I get an error : While deleting: i32* %a Use still stuck around after Def is destroyed: store i32* %a, i32** %p, align 4 opt: /home/ambika/llvm_3/llvm-2.6/lib/VMCore/Value.cpp:81: virtual llvm::Value::~Value():

I made a GlobalVariable that is of type ConstantArray. For one of it's elements I assigned it the ConstantExpr::getBitCast of another GlobalVariable(the "shadow pointer" mentioned). This gives me: While deleting: i32 (i32)** %Shadow Variable for ptr1 Use still stuck around after Def is destroyed:i8* bitcast (i32 (i32)** @"Shadow Variable for ptr1" to i8*)

On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On 9 August 2014 02:03, Rob Jansen <jansen at cs.umn.edu> wrote: > > Why is the first for loop not equivalent to the second? > > In the second loop, "*ui" is an llvm::Use object. It's owned by a > User, but isn't a subclass of one. To match the

Dear All, I'm getting the following assertion from a program I've written: /home/vadve/criswell/src/llvm22/lib/VMCore/Value.cpp:57: virtual llvm::Value::~Value(): Assertion `use_empty() && "Uses remain when a value is destroyed!"' failed. This occurs when I free a Module (the program uses an auto_ptr() to the Module, and the auto_ptr() moves out of scope). It

Hi, I have two functions in a module, X.foo, which is the callee, and Y.foo2, which calls X.foo. If i either try to run llvm::Function::eraseFromParent() on any one of the functions, i'll get this assertion error: F is used in instruction: %"calling function" = call i32 @X.foo(i32 %read) F is used in instruction: %"calling function" = call i32 @X.foo(i32 %read) While

I am trying to give a quota of how many instructions can be run to a program. So create a simple function as below: define void @add_gas(i64 %gasCost) { __virtual_entry: %0 = load i64, i64* @__WAVM__XX__gGasUsed ### I am sure it exists, same as the __WAVM__XX__gGasLimit %addtmp = add i64 %0, %gasCost %1 = load i64, i64* @__WAVM__XX__gGasLimit %cmptmp = icmp sgt i64 %addtmp, %1 br i1

On Oct 26, 2011, at 12:18 PM, ret val wrote: > I made a GlobalVariable that is of type ConstantArray. For one of it's > elements I assigned it the ConstantExpr::getBitCast of another > GlobalVariable(the "shadow pointer" mentioned). This gives me: > > While deleting: i32 (i32)** %Shadow Variable for ptr1 > Use still stuck around after Def is

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Ambika Agarwal <agarwal.ambika at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I had asked earlier from my another ID about duplicating a basic block, but > that server is down for moment. > I was given suggestion to use CloneBasicBlock, but when I used it I get an > error : > > While deleting: i32* %a > Use still stuck around after Def is

Hi, I have: ... @.str1 = private unnamed_addr constant [21 x i8] c"Now f is a function\0A\00", align 1 ; Function Attrs: ssp uwtable define i32 @_Z1fv() #2 { entry: %call = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([21 x i8]* @.str1, i32 0, i32 0)) ret i32 0 } Then I get after trying to erase the function from the module: 511