similar to: Dump LLVM StoreInst

The code you've pasted there is inconsistent in variable names. Your created an instruction called 'op1' but your print uses 'v1'. What should be an '->' is just a '-'. You also have a variable in your print called 'op' but that's not declared in your code. Also the result of dyn_cast should always be checked for null before using the result.

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Zhou Zhizhong via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I’m writing a loop-free LLVM pass, my thought is to track if the value inside the loop is changed, so I look up the Instruction StoreInst first and try to get its value in a set. I checked getValueOperand(), getValueName() in the API document but unfortunately they failed the

As a concrete question, I understand 'Value' class is the parent of many concrete sub-classes. Let's say I retrieve a Value* value = store_inst->getValueOperand(). Unless I know what the sub-type is, how can I further use this object? I tried something like this: ================================================= Value* value = store_inst->getValueOperand()

I am trying to cast a Value* irrespective of its underlying subclass to uint64 and pass it on to a method as an argument. if (StoreInst *store_inst = dyn_cast<StoreInst>(&I)) { Value* vo = store_inst->getValueOperand(); uint64 value = /* cast vo to unsigned int 64 bit */ func(value); } How can I force

On 11 June 2017 at 07:53, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Sounds like you're looking for reinterpret_cast: http://en. > cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/reinterpret_cast > I tried cast<ConstInt>(vo), but that failed at run-time. > > On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 3:06 AM Dipanjan Das via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >

On 11 June 2017 at 14:04, don hinton <hintonda at gmail.com> wrote: > Assuming you know it's a 64 bit value, and the function you are calling > takes a uint64_t, try this: > The values from the test program are of type: i32/i32*/i32**. Can't I interpret these as uint64_t some way? > > Value* args[] = {store_inst->getOperand(0)}; > > > On Sun, Jun 11,

On 11 June 2017 at 23:06, Jeremy Lakeman <Jeremy.Lakeman at gmail.com> wrote: > http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#the-isa-cast-and-dyn-cast- > templates > I understand isa and dyn-cast let you test the type of an object at run-time by leveraging LLVM's custom implementation of RTTI. However, it doesn't make much sense to test out for all possible sub-classes to

On 11 June 2017 at 12:05, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 June 2017 at 11:56, Dipanjan Das via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I can't pass var_value to a function accepting uint64_t. LLVM complains > > about broken function call. > > Well, yes. var_value has type "ConstantInt *", not uint64_t. Assuming

Tobias, et al., Attached is the my autovectorization pass. I've fixed a bug that appears when using -bb-vectorize-aligned-only, fixed some 80-col violations, etc., and at least on x86_64, all test cases pass except for a few; and all of these failures look like instruction-selection bugs. For example: MultiSource/Applications/ClamAV - fails to compile shared_sha256.c with an error: error in

What LoopVectorize.cpp has are the following. Each function may have to have a separate consolidation discussion. I'm bringing up getpointerOperand() since I actually found multiple instances defined/used. DependenceAnalysis.cpp has isLoadOrStore(). LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp has getAddressSpaceOperand(). I'm sure there are others that might be worth discussing within this thread or a follow

Tobias, I've attached the latest version of my autovectorization patch. I was able to add support for using the ScalarEvolution analysis for load/store pairing (thanks for your help!). This led to a modest performance increase and a modest compile-time increase. This version also has a cutoff as you suggested (although the default value is set high (4000 instructions between pairs) because

"Saito, Hideki via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > LLVM friends, > > I'm currently trying to make LoopVectorizationLegality class in > Transform/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp more modular and eventually move > it to Analysis directory tree. It uses several file scope helper > functions that do not really belong to LoopVectorize. Let me start

On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 21:22 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 11:55 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > > Tobias, > > > > I've attached an updated patch. It contains a few bug fixes and many > > (refactoring and coding-convention) changes inspired by your comments. > > > > I'm currently trying to fix the bug responsible for causing a compile

I'm trying to create and insert a anonymous function that will make a assignment on a GlobalVariable, based on a existing StoreInst. Once I find this StoreInst(which provides me with 2 Value* objects for me to use) I need to pass it to my anonymous function so it can carry out the assignment. I can not get the correct types, at runtime I get a bad signature error. So basically the function is

On 11/17/2011 12:38 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > Tobias, et al., > > Attached is the my autovectorization pass. Very nice. Will you be at the developer summit? Maybe we could discuss the integration there? Here a first review of the source code. > diff --git a/docs/Passes.html b/docs/Passes.html > index 5c42f3f..076effa 100644 > --- a/docs/Passes.html > +++ b/docs/Passes.html

LLVM friends, I'm currently trying to make LoopVectorizationLegality class in Transform/Vectorize/LoopVectorize.cpp more modular and eventually move it to Analysis directory tree. It uses several file scope helper functions that do not really belong to LoopVectorize. Let me start from getPointerOperand(). Within LLVM, there are five other similar functions defined. I think it's time to

On 11 June 2017 at 11:32, Nikodemus Siivola <nikodemus at random-state.net> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Dipanjan Das via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On 11 June 2017 at 07:53, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Sounds like you're looking for reinterpret_cast: http://en.cp

Oh, got it. Thanks for your explain. I misunderstand what getLocation does. If I would like to get the result of alias analysis referring to the stored value, what should I do in llvm? On 2/16/15 1:42 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Haopeng Liu" <hyliuhp at gmail.com> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >>

On 11/23/2011 05:52 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 21:22 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: >> > On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 11:55 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: >>> > > Tobias, >>> > > >>> > > I've attached an updated patch. It contains a few bug fixes and many >>> > > (refactoring and coding-convention) changes inspired

John, Thanks for the reply. I agree with your comments that the "Memory" LLVM Spec refers to doesn't include stack. Let me leverage a bit further: If I need to work on high-level IRs (not machine dependent, not in the code-gen stage), is it reasonable to assume that ALL LLVM IRs that have a result field will have potential to write stack? E.g. <result> =