similar to: How jump－table representated in DAG

Thanks for your help. Is there possible I can get the realily case value form the MI? For the case in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34902. as follows. ############################# * GCC v7.1 generated assembly ############################# ** Options: -Os -marm -march=armv7-a foo: @ args = 0, pretend = 0, frame = 0 @ frame_needed = 0, uses_anonymous_args = 0 sub

Hi, guys I am interesting about how to get the switch case value form the Machine Instruction. I know the switch will be converted to jump-table in the Machine Instruction. And in the phase CodeGen , the case-value of SwitchInst can get esasly. but it seems no case -value in Machine Instruction. The MI as follows: Frame Objects: fi#0: size=1, align=0, at location [SP] fi#1: size=4,

Some glitch in the emailer? I have received this message 3 times in a row!? I think that by the time it gets as far as MI-level there is no reversible method of determining the 'case' label at all. The reason I say this, is that I have often seen optimisations that coalesce groups of values into interesting logical tests and jump-tables are completely avoided. For example, a simple

I am working on a back end for an architecture whose jump via table instruction includes the range check. Therefore I don't need the range check generated (in SelectionDAGBuilder ?). There appears to be a struct JumpTableHeader which contains a field OmitRangeCheck which, when true, does what I want. However, there doesn't appear to be a mechanism for a back end to set it. Anyone

Hi, guys I am interesting about how to get the switch case value form the Machine Instruction. I know the switch will be converted to jump-table in the Machine Instruction. And in the phase CodeGen , the case-value of SwitchInst can get esasly. but it seems no case -value in Machine Instruction. The MI as follows: Frame Objects: fi#0: size=1, align=0, at location [SP] fi#1: size=4,

Hi All, Is there a pass in llvm that converts switch statements to if statements? George -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130506/f06741c4/attachment.html>

I mean an llvm Pass that transforms switch statements into if statements. For example, if I have code with switch statements then running the pass will convert all switches to ifs in the bytecode. George On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "George Baah" <georgebaah at gmail.com> > >

Hi, I'm interested in any information about implementations of switch instruction and its runtime cost. If it's very target dependent, I'm mostly care about X86. Pointing some LLVM code is also good. - Paweł -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141027/285f02e5/attachment.html>

Hi, if I want to know how switch instructions are handled in the backend, where do I have to look first? I'm not familiar with the backend framework and I couldn't figure out the interface between the LLVM instruction 'SwitchInst' and whatever there is in the backend. I would be very happy about every hint where I have to look to find the entry point of switch instructions in the

Hi all I write a pass, which will link two module together, Is there some method that I can obtain the path of the input file? If so, I can get the module by the path of the input. Or Is there some method that I can obtain the two modules of the input file by opt? Thanks, yaoxiao -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Nico <listiges at arcor.de> wrote: > Hi, > > if I want to know how switch instructions are handled in the backend, where do I have to look first? > I'm not familiar with the backend framework and I couldn't figure out the interface between the LLVM instruction 'SwitchInst' and whatever there is in the backend. > > I would be

Hi Eli, Thank you for the quick reply. On Feb 27, 2012, at 10:03 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > SelectionDAGBuilder::visitSwitch is the general switch lowering... I understand this lowering is target independent and there is no additional target dependent handling of switch instructions - right? Only branches and jump tables are left after this lowering? Kind regards, Nico

----- Original Message ----- > From: "George Baah" <georgebaah at gmail.com> > To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 3:09:33 PM > Subject: [LLVMdev] convert switch stmts to If statements > > > > > Hi All, Is there a pass in llvm that converts switch statements to if > statements?

There is also the LowerSwitch pass that converts switch instructions to a sequence of branches. On May 6, 2013, at 1:24 PM, George Baah <georgebaah at gmail.com> wrote: > I mean an llvm Pass that transforms switch statements into if statements. For example, if I have code with switch statements then running the pass will convert all switches to ifs in the bytecode. > > George

Hope live broadcast ! <br/><br/>Thanks,<br/>yaoxiao 在 2018-05-29 15:02:30，"Leslie Zhai via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 写道： > > >在 2018年05月29日 14:58, mayuyu.io 写道: >> Any hint on the date of LLVM Social ShangHai? >Wu Wei scheduled July 1th http://hellollvm.org/ > > >> >> Zhang >> >>> 在

Hi, all I try to get the Instructions where one function use the global variable. for (llvm::Module::global_iterator gvar_iter = M.global_begin(); gvar_iter != M.global_end(); gvar_iter++) { llvm::GlobalVariable *gvar = &*gvar_iter; llvm::errs() << "const global var: " << gvar->getName() << "\n"; for (

Hello everyone, I'm new to LLVM (which is a really great project by the way) and I hope this is the right place for my question. In the LLVM Language Reference Manual I found the "jumptable" function attribute, which seems to be exactly what I need for my project (where I want to add one level of indirection to every function call), but I have trouble figuring out, how to use

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 05:28:04PM -0700, Tom Roeder wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:54:07PM -0700, Tom Roeder wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > > wrote: > > > >> The way I've implemented it (see

Hi all, I'm a beginner in LLVM. I read a paper recently, and I'm trying to use LLVM jumptable in 3.5. When I compile the .bc file into .s file, I tried to use the different jumptable type: all, single, ... e.g. clang -c -emit-llvm test.c llc test.bc -jump-table-type=full -o test-full.s llc test.bc -jump-table-type=single -o test-single.s The tested C source code is like: void foo() {

Hi, this is a proposal for the implementation of CFI-icall [1] with ThinLTO. Jumptables are generated in the merged module. To generate a jumptable, we need a list of functions with !type annotations, including (in non-cross-dso mode) external functions. Unfortunately, LLVM IR does not preserve unused function declarations, and we don’t want to copy the actual function bodies to the merged