similar to: Replace "while" "for" loops with "If-Else"

Hi weiren, Thanks for your suggestion! Yes, I am trying to do this "nested flattening". It seems that I need a post-dominator tree-based algorithm to flatten the nested loops from the innermost to the outermost, level by level. Is there any feature already existed in LLVM tools? Or similar? On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:31 AM, 陳韋任 <chenwj.cs97g at g2.nctu.edu.tw> wrote: > If

Thx all for the quick answers... > De : llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] de la part de Arnaud ALLARD DE GRANDMAISON [arnaud.allarddegrandmaison at parrot.com] > > Hi, > > Depending on what have run before your pass, the loop may have been unrolled or simplified if the computation inside the loop is too simple. > > Cheers, > -- > Arnaud de

This is my main.c (just a crappy test file): #include <stdlib.h> void foo() { foo(); } int main(int argc,char** argv) { int a = 1; int b = 3; int c = a+b; int k; for(k=0;k<10;++k) { // The loop I'm trying to detect int sdf = 123123; c++; } if(c - atoi(argv[1])

> 2.i want to write such a test:translate a *.ll(i.e:hello.ll) file to a > *.c file(i.e:hello.c) with llc,then verify if the .c file contian a > certain string(i.e:"abc:). so: It seems you want to test LLVM C backend, go looking for llvm-3.0.src/test/CodeGen/CBackend/* (C backend had been removed from LLVM 3.1). HTH, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab, Institute

> Yes it's my own lib... It contains some obfuscation's passes. The one I'm trying to make now is making code flattening! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What's the flattening effect? Maybe try NOT to flat it first? Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab, Institute

It try to put all basicblock in a switch in a loop, like that for example: int main() { if(something) somethingelse: else another; } become: int main() { while(true) { switch(var) { case 0: if(something) var+=1; else: var+=2; break; case1:

Hi all, The slides we used on "CGO MCLinker and LLVM Tutorial" are now available on the MCLinker website: http://code.google.com/p/mclinker/wiki/2013CGOTutorial Enjoy! - The CGO Tutorial on MCLinker and LLVM 2013 committee

> Just as I said to Hal, nothing else than: > $ clang -emit-llvm -S -o main.ll main.c > $ ../build/Release/bin/opt -load ../build/Release/lib/LLVMobfuscationTest.so -flattening -S main.ll -o main.opt.ll Then you might need to past your main.c. Besides, is LLVMobfuscationTest.so your own pass? What does it do? Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab, Institute of

Thanks Weiren! My goal is to transform the code automatically by doing some code analysis, instead of rewriting it manually. To do this source level auto transformation, do you have any suggestions on what tool to use? Thanks again!! On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 04:25 陳韋任 via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > 2018-01-15 9:36 GMT+08:00 Linchuan Chen via llvm-dev <

You can also `-disable-verify -o <output-filename> ` which will disable the verify check. On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 Dipanjan Das via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Yes, that definitely works. Wanted to know if there's a switch for file > output or not. > > On 21 October 2017 at 23:45, 陳韋任 <chenwj.cs97g at g2.nctu.edu.tw> wrote: >

hi,chen: thaks for your explaining,after reading it i have a few problems more. 1.in the sentenses of "X32: subl $-128, %eax" and "; X64: subl $-128," ,i do not know what means that in detail,these sentences were writen follow which language rules? 2.i want to write such a test:translate a *.ll(i.e:hello.ll) file to a *.c file(i.e:hello.c) with llc,then verify if the .c

Just use Unix IO redirect? `llc -mllvm -print-after-all &> a.txt` 2017-10-22 14:17 GMT+08:00 Dipanjan Das via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > > Seems like "-mllvm -print-after-all" does the trick. Is there any switch > that dumps the output to a file instead of console? > > On 21 October 2017 at 21:33, Dipanjan Das <mail.dipanjan.das at

> I'm running opt with my lib on a ir code emmitted by clang: $ clang -emit-llvm -S -o main.ll main.c > and opt: $ ../build/Release/bin/opt -load ../build/Release/lib/LLVMobfuscationTest.so -flattening -S main.ll -o main.opt.ll What's the clang default opt level? Maybe you should use "-O0" explicitly. Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab,

2018-01-15 9:36 GMT+08:00 Linchuan Chen via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > Dear all, > I'm working on a simple code transformation problem that can be > described as below: > > for a C++ loop: > > *for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {* > * a = M[i] + b;* > * }* > > I want to transform it to: > > *int A[4]; *

Dear all, I'm working on a simple code transformation problem that can be described as below: for a C++ loop: *for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {* * a = M[i] + b;* * }* I want to transform it to: *int A[4]; * * for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {* * A[0] = M[i] + b;* * A[1] = M[i] + b;* * A[2] = M[i] + b;* * A[3] = M[i] + b;* *

On 2/7/14, 10:24 AM, Andrew Trick wrote: > > On Feb 5, 2014, at 12:54 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at silkan.com > <mailto:mehdi.amini at silkan.com>> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I was looking at some bugs to play with, and I started with >> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18606 >> >> As I commented there, a loop is unrolled and exhibit

Hi, I guess you miss "-lpthread"? Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Parallel Processing Lab, Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, Taiwan (R.O.C.) Tel:886-2-2788-3799 #1667

Also you might need to check use PostRASchedulerList or PostMachineScheduler, PostRASchedulerList is considered deprecated as mentioned in [1]. [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112348.html HTH, chenwj 2017-06-10 4:03 GMT+08:00 陳韋任 <chenwj.cs97g at g2.nctu.edu.tw>: > Not saying I am totally understand how thing works, but I think you're > misleading >

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?

Hi, I was looking at some bugs to play with, and I started with http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18606 As I commented there, a loop is unrolled and exhibit this pattern: %mul.1 = mul i32 %mul, %mul %mul.2 = mul i32 %mul.1, %mul.1 .... With an unroll factor of 32, the last multiply has 2^32 terms in its SCEV expression. (I mean I expect it would have those terms if I was patient