similar to: Inst->replaceAllUsesWith and uses in ConstantExpr

Whoops, sorry, I meant "value->replaceAllUsesWith". Should I create a new post with an updated title? Thanks Siddharth On Thu 17 Aug, 2017, 01:05 Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > On 16 August 2017 at 15:39, (IIIT) Siddharth Bhat via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > From what I have observed, using

I see. Is there a pre-existing way to do this in LLVM? Cheers, ~Siddharth. On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 at 02:12 Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > ConstantExprs are immutable, they can't be changed once they are created. > And a ConstantExpr can reference other ConstantExprs. So replacing all uses > of a Value in a ConstantExpr would require creating a new immutable

Hello all, I've seen some discussion that InstCombine is "too general" and that llvm should implement a proper graph rewrite mechanism: Link to llvm-dev discussion about this: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-May/113219.html, Link to review where this came up (and I first heard about it): https://reviews.llvm.org/D37195. I wanted to understand what the current issues

Hello, I'm implementing a custom Haskell-to-LLVM compiler, and in my experimentation, noticed that GHC is much slower than clang certain examples, such as the ackermann function. However, from reading their respective IRs (Cmm for GHC and LLVM for clang), I don't really see much of a difference. Here is a link to the numbers. (n, m) are the parameters to the ackermann function

I looked around for the status of OrcJIT FFI support. The last e-mail thread I could find was this one: Link <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-February/081679.html> Raw: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-February/081679.html Is OrcJIT now considered stable enough that there can be "official" exposed C APIs? If not, what's the standard approach if I

I've started hacking up a branch with a rough implementation of equality saturation. This needs me to add objects such as PEGBasicBlock, PEGInstruction, PEGTerminatorInstruction, etc. (PEG stands for "program expression block"). I wish to share most of the infrastructure that exists - I believe this is already done with Machine*. How do I do this for PEGs? I'd also like to get

Hello all, I recently felt the need to have debug info at the LLVM IR level (because my frontend's semantics vastly differ from IR that it doesn't make much sense to use it). Asm can sometimes be too "low level", so it's nice to have the ability to single-step at the IR level. The pass that used to do this (-debugir) bitrotted and was removed from tree. I spent the weekend

The GEP constructor does not assert that the source and destination types match. Of course, this is incorrect and causes random failures somewhere down the line. Could I add general sanity checks to the GEP constructor? In general, is an Instruction allowed to be in an inconsistent state? If so, is there some well known method to "verify" whether an instruction is consistent or not?

As the question asks. IIRC, I have only seen constants use to: 1. setup globals 2. as "constant parameters" to instructions. In both these cases, from what I understand, they will have a single use. Is it possible to create a Constant with multiple use(r)s? Thanks, Siddharth -- Sending this from my phone, please excuse any typos! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Hello all, This is a general question regarding type conversion: from: <ty>** to: [<size> x <ty>]* >From what I understand, bitcast is wrong in this case because a GEP into a <ty>** should be computed differently from a GEP into [<size> x <ty>]*. So, what is the correct way to perform this type conversion? Thanks, Siddharth -- Sending this from my

What would the "correct form of GEP be"? Thanks, Siddharth On Fri 11 Aug, 2017, 23:47 Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev, < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 8/11/2017 3:40 PM, Siddharth Bhat via llvm-dev wrote: > > > > This is a general question regarding type conversion: > > > > from: <ty>** > > to: [<size> x <ty>]* >

Hello all, I have a custom allocator, and would like to teach LLVM about its semantics. In particular, I would like LLVM to kill allocations that are "dead", similar to dead new in C++. Consider this example: ; ModuleID = '<stdin>' source_filename = "Module" ; Function Attrs: inaccessiblememonly noinline norecurse nounwind declare i8* @alloc(i64)

Hi Folks, We are a group of LLVM compiler developers in Hyderabad area. Considering few previous mail about meetups in India, we are planning to organize LLVM meetups in India evry monthly or bimonthly in the best interest of other developers. Based on the concentration of developers Pune, Bangalore and Hyderabad are the location we have in mind. Interested folks please reply stating ur

I'd be interested in attending and helping organise the Hyderabad meetup. Cheers Siddharth On Wed 30 May, 2018, 14:32 Siddharth Shankar Swain via llvm-dev, < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > We are a group of LLVM compiler developers in Hyderabad area. Considering > few previous mail about meetups in India, we are planning to organize LLVM > meetups

Hello, Calling `replaceUsesOfWith` with a value in a different addrspace does not keep the addrspace of a GEP consistent. Is this known? Is this a bug or expected behaviour? Minimal counterexample link <https://gist.github.com/bollu/152ba5e1c20c03c7fc6d8c7b23ba828f> Reproduced here: #include <iostream> #include "llvm/ADT/APFloat.h" #include

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Siddharth Bhat via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I could be entirely wrong, but from my understanding of memorySSA, each > def defines an "abstract heap state" which has the coarsest possible > definition - any write will be modelled as a "new heap state". > This is true for def-def relationships, but

On 05/30/2018 06:04 AM, Siddharth Bhat via llvm-dev wrote: > You can run SCEV which will see through bitcasts and GEPs, so it > should give an expression of the form (base + offset) on the pointer > of the load. Specifically, you can use ScalarEvolution to subtract the expression for the base descriptor from the expression for the loaded pointer and see if the result is a SCEVConstant.

Hello LLVM-World, currently I play around with a "llvm::Module" and an external function defined there "puts". Normally this function gets resolved in the JIT-Process but I wonder about two things: 1. Can I resolve the function already in this step? I used "replaceAllUsesWith" and passed a "llvm::ConstantInt" to the function. But this didn't

As the question asks, I'm having some trouble using initializeAllTargets(). I have a CMakeLists that uses: llvm_map_components_to_libnames(LLVM_LIBS ... AllTargetsAsmParsers AllTargetsAsmPrinters AllTargetsDescs AllTargetsInfos ...) However, even with these, when I try to compile my program, I get linker errors: CMakeFiles/sxhc.dir/src/main.cpp.o: In function

Hi, I've been struggling with constantexprs for a bit. I'm working on a pass that transforms global variables to local variables, and in particular the GetElementPtrConstantExpr is a bit troublesome. For my transformation to properly work, a global value should only be used by Instructions, not by ConstantExprs. I was thinking to add a ConstantExpr::replaceWithInstr() virtual method,