search for: user_begin

...cific operand in an Instruction and resetting it with a new value using "setOperands(int, Value*)". I am doing as: for (auto vmitr=vm.begin(), vsitr=vs.begin(); vmitr!=vm.end() && vsitr!=vs.end(); vmitr++, vsitr++){ // I have two *Value ( operands) for ( auto myitr =(*vsitr)->user_begin(); myitr!=(*vsitr)->user_end(); ++myitr){ // Finding the uses of one operand for ( int k = 0; k < (*myitr)->getNumOperands(); k++){ // going through the operands of the Instructions that uses it if ((*myitr)->getOperand(k) == *vsitr){ // Find the operand and its position in the instruct...

Why is the first for loop not equivalent to the second? Thanks, Rob =========================== for (GlobalVariable **i = Globals.begin(), **e = Globals.end(); i != e; ++i) { GlobalVariable *GV = *i; Constant *GEP = ConstantExpr::getGetElementPtr(...); GV->replaceAllUsesWith(GEP); } =========================== for (GlobalVariable **i = Globals.begin(), **e = Globals.end(); i != e;

Hi, I'm trying to change all uses of a global variable so they'll use a different global variable. For instance, I have: @a = global [100 x [100 x i64]] zeroinitializer, align 16 @b = global [100 x [100 x i64]] zeroinitializer, align 16 And I want to change the use %arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds [100 x [100 x i64]]* @a, i32 0, i64 %3 to %arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds

...ow can this guarantee that it only erase lifetime instrinsics ? -guoqing // The only users of this bitcast/GEP instruction are lifetime intrinsics. // Follow the use/def chain to erase them now instead of leaving it for // dead code elimination later. for (auto UUI = I->user_begin(), UUE = I->user_end(); UUI != UUE;) { Instruction *Inst = cast<Instruction>(*UUI); ++UUI; Inst->eraseFromParent(); } On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "guo...

...ing, but this returns an iterator range you can iterate through to find instructions that depend on a given one. Similarly, you have the function ‘uses()’ that can be used to traverse down the DAG when instructions are still on SSA form. Look also at the related functions 'user_end()’, 'user_begin()’, 'use_end()' and 'use_begin() I hope this helps. Joan > On 28 Jul 2019, at 08:29, Alberto Barbaro via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > I was thinking that maybe there is always some sort of dependency analysis that would allow me to vis...

Thank you! I wanted to use the right part of the instruction , %a = alloca i32, align 4 - %a here , but I don't quite understand the difference between Instruction object and Value object of a, which is used further , and in this case : %1 = alloca i32, align 4 - I also wanted to use %1 and in this case the only possibility is Instruction object. 2017-07-20 15:32 GMT+02:00 Evgeny Astigeevich

...en <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 first loop, you either > need to call Value::user_begin instead of use_begin, or do the cast on > "ui->getUser()". > I think this is incorrect since the use_iterator is defined as: `typedef value_use_iterator<User> use_iterator;` and indeed `ui->getUser();` is not a callable function on a User. What am I missing? -Rob ---...

...same as its store size and the store // size is a legal integer type. if (!Ty->isIntegerTy() && Ty->isSized() && DL.isLegalInteger(DL.getTypeStoreSizeInBits(Ty)) && DL.getTypeStoreSizeInBits(Ty) == DL.getTypeSizeInBits(Ty)) { if (std::all_of(LI.user_begin(), LI.user_end(), [&LI](User *U) { auto *SI = dyn_cast<StoreInst>(U); return SI && SI->getPointerOperand() != &LI; })) { ... After ignoring load/stores which satisfy something like the above code, you can always fallback to the current co...

----- Original Message ----- > From: "guoqing zhang" <gqzhang81 at gmail.com> > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 4:29:16 AM > Subject: [LLVMdev] About user of bitcast/GEP instruction > > Hi, > > > In PromoteMemoryToRegister.cpp, it seems to rely on the fact that the > only users of bitcast/GEP instruction are lifetime

Hi, In PromoteMemoryToRegister.cpp, it seems to rely on the fact that the only users of bitcast/GEP instruction are lifetime intrinsics (llvm.lifetime.start/end). I did some searching in llvm/test folder, it seems to be true. However, by reading LLVM IR manual, I don't see any restriction stated on the possible user of bitcast/GEP instruction. So my question is who impose the restriction ?

...= alloca i32, align 4 - %a here > > >, but I don't quite understand the difference between Instruction object > and Value object of a, which is used further , and in this case : > > Instr1: alloca i32, align 4 > > If there are users of Instr1 then can access them calling user_begin() > on Instr1. You can access Instr1 from users as in the example above. Of > course you need to keep the pointer to Instr1 somewhere to check that it's > used. > > > > %1 = alloca i32, align 4 - I also wanted to use %1 and in this case the > only possibility is Instruct...

So this change did indeed have an effect! :) I’m seeing regressions in a number of benchmarks mainly due to a host of extra bitcasts that get introduced. Here’s the problem I’m seeing in a nutshell: 1) There is a Phi with input type double 2) Polly demotes the phi into a load/store of type double 3) InstCombine canonicalizes the load/store to use i64 instead of double 4)

Hi Tim, as always thanks for your help. Unfortunately I made a mistake in my email but apart from that I still have problems. Il giorno sab 27 lug 2019 alle ore 11:53 Tim Northover < t.p.northover at gmail.com> ha scritto: > Hi Alberto, > > On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 at 10:09, Alberto Barbaro via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Having the reference I to