search for: visitfreeinst

...integer type), there is nothing to check. > Another question is: How much does Verifier.cpp check statically? > Can I take it as a type checker for SSA? Is there any static > semantics that has not been checked yet? The verifier is best effort, it does not guarantee correctness. > 2) visitFreeInst has been removed from lib/ExecutionEngine/Interpreter in 2.7 > Will this have any back-compatible problem when interpreting any > *.bc from 2.6? The .bc reader will eliminate freeinst from the ir when reading an old file. -chris

...queTyID, LabelTyID, MetadataTyID and etc are ignored in the 'default' branch. Does it mean we dont need to check them? Another question is: How much does Verifier.cpp check statically? Can I take it as a type checker for SSA? Is there any static semantics that has not been checked yet? 2) visitFreeInst has been removed from lib/ExecutionEngine/Interpreter in 2.7 Will this have any back-compatible problem when interpreting any *.bc from 2.6? Thanks -- Jianzhou

...tions off). Further, there are semantics of the program that the verifier will never verify. It is undefined behaviour to shift beyond the width of an integer. It is undefined behaviour to call a function with mismatching calling conventions. http://llvm.org/docs/FAQ.html#callconvwrong > 2) visitFreeInst has been removed from lib/ExecutionEngine/Interpreter in 2.7 > Will this have any back-compatible problem when interpreting any > *.bc from 2.6? The 'free' instruction has been removed from LLVM 2.7. Any .bc files using it will have a 'call @free' inserted in its place. Nic...

...could we not change the syntax of blocks as..? phi* i* t* where phi is a Phi node, i is an insn except Phi and terminator, and t is a terminator node. So we dont need to check this at runtime. This is same to ask if the verifier is a module that we have to run. Thanks. > >> 2) visitFreeInst has been removed from lib/ExecutionEngine/Interpreter in 2.7 >> Will this have any back-compatible problem when interpreting any >> *.bc from 2.6? > > The .bc reader will eliminate freeinst from the ir when reading an old file. > > -chris -- Jianzhou

..., there are semantics of the program that the verifier will never > verify. It is undefined behaviour to shift beyond the width of an integer. > It is undefined behaviour to call a function with mismatching calling > conventions. http://llvm.org/docs/FAQ.html#callconvwrong > >> 2) visitFreeInst has been removed from lib/ExecutionEngine/Interpreter in >> 2.7 >> Will this have any back-compatible problem when interpreting any >> *.bc from 2.6? > > The 'free' instruction has been removed from LLVM 2.7. Any .bc files using > it will have a 'call @free...