search for: usebbs

...It++){ Instruction *pUseInstr = dyn_cast<Instruction>(*useIt); //This is the current use of the defInsn }* However, this code later on does not work and shows the def of %29 to have no uses [not the case] (pIRI here is a data structure we've created which keeps track of defs and useBBs. The defs part works fine.): *for (std::map<BasicBlock*, InstrRelInfo::UseInfo*>::iterator useBB_iter = pIRI->useBBs.begin(); useBB_iter != pIRI->useBBs.end(); ++useBB_iter) { for (InstrRelInfo::UseInfo::iterator use_iter = (*useBB_iter).second->begin();...

>> all the zero paths from entry to %a pass by %b. > > > That is a graph-wise definition, sure. > So, this is an interesting definition, and maybe this is part of the source > of the problem. > > For SSA, at least GCC requires that both "definition block dominates use > block" (which would be true here), *and* > that "definition appears before use in

On 25 February 2015 at 10:58, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Rafael Espíndola > <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Maybe. >> > My view is the ideal is either no-unreachable code, or unreachable >> > blocks >> > only contain terminators. >> >> I am

On 02/25/2015 10:41 AM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: >>> all the zero paths from entry to %a pass by %b. >> >> That is a graph-wise definition, sure. >> So, this is an interesting definition, and maybe this is part of the source >> of the problem. >> >> For SSA, at least GCC requires that both "definition block dominates use >> block" (which

When looking into https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24866, I discovered that the root cause of the crash is that I was expecting every basic block to have a corresponding Node in the dominator tree. Apparently, the "while.end" basic block in the example does not have a Node in the Dominator Tree. Can anyone tell me if this is expected? If so, under what circumstances?