similar to: [LLVMdev] Re: an error

On Apr 21, 2008, at 15:07, John Criswell wrote: >> 1. For getting ALL struct allocation, when I use >> >> if( (AI = dyn_cast<AllocaInst>(&*i))) >> if(AI->getOperand(0)->getType()->getTypeID() == >> Type::StructTyID) { >> >> to get all alloca instructions allocating a structure, it does not >> work. In my gdb

Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On Apr 21, 2008, at 15:07, John Criswell wrote: > > >>> 1. For getting ALL struct allocation, when I use >>> >>> if( (AI = dyn_cast<AllocaInst>(&*i))) >>> if(AI->getOperand(0)->getType()->getTypeID() == >>> Type::StructTyID) { >>> >>> to get all alloca

Lu Zhao wrote: > Hi John, > > Thank you a lot. That clarifies some my confusions. What I want to do > is to use both methods, get ALL struct allocation and a SPECIFIC struct > allocation, at different situations. Here, I've got a couple of more > questions. > > 1. For getting ALL struct allocation, when I use > > if( (AI =

llvm is giving me some assertion errors when trying to replace an instruction, and I'm not quite sure of what to do. I have the following snippet of code: switch((*I)->getOpcode()) { case Instruction::Malloc: { AllocaInst *AI; AI = new AllocaInst(cast<AllocationInst>(*I)->getAllocatedType(), cast<AllocationInst>(*I)->getArraySize());

Hi John, Thank you a lot. That clarifies some my confusions. What I want to do is to use both methods, get ALL struct allocation and a SPECIFIC struct allocation, at different situations. Here, I've got a couple of more questions. 1. For getting ALL struct allocation, when I use if( (AI = dyn_cast<AllocaInst>(&*i)))

On Dec 6, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Andrew Lenharth wrote: > Currently, Structure layout is left to targets, which implement them > according to the ABI of that platform. While this is fine for most > structures, it makes packed structures very ugly. All fields in a > packed type must be converted to byte arrays with casts to access > fields, which bloats accesses and obsfucates the

How should we deal with arrays in a structure? should we transform each element of this array to a scalar? Should we consider that the elements of the array are also structure? Thanks! Jianzhong

Michael Smith wrote: > Well, line 364 wasn't actually what was holding me up, so it's a bad > example, but the problem's still relevant. Using cast<...>(iter), > dyn_cast<...>(iter), or isa<...>(iter) results in the error messages > mentioned below. .... > When compiling LoadValueNumbering.cpp, I get the following errors: > >

Well, line 364 wasn't actually what was holding me up, so it's a bad example, but the problem's still relevant. Using cast<...>(iter), dyn_cast<...>(iter), or isa<...>(iter) results in the error messages mentioned below. ________________________________ When compiling LoadValueNumbering.cpp, I get the following errors:

In the section expaining "dyn_cast" There are following lines of code: if (AllocationInst *AI = dyn_cast<AllocationInst>(Val)) { ... } I cannot understand how you take a operand, a value, and cast it into a Instruction. Can you explain it for me? Another common example is: // Loop over all of the phi nodes in a basic block BasicBlock::iterator BBI =

Also sprach xli3 at uiuc.edu: } In the section expaining "dyn_cast" } There are following lines of code: } if (AllocationInst *AI = dyn_cast<AllocationInst>(Val)) { } ... } } } I cannot understand how you take a operand, a value, and cast } it into a Instruction. Can you explain it for me? } } Another common example is: } } // Loop over all of the phi nodes

Hi all. A company I'm working for is interested in using LLVM as a part of a larger suite of products, and I'm in charge of porting it to Sun Studio 8, one of the compilers that our product builds on. I've made reasonable progress, and for the most part the compiler's co-operating, however I'm running into a problem I believe is with template resolution, and I'm looking for

Hamid 2C wrote: > Hi all, > > I am working on some old code which was compiled against llvm-2.5. > Anyway, in some places I, AllocationInst is used (e.g. to ensure the > instruction's type). Even in your current documentation > (http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html), I found an example that > uses this instruction. > If I got it correctly, this istruction

Hi all, I just found that TargetData also contains a similar assert, and that I forgot a "return" in my previous patch. Here's an updated patch, which allows to use any integer to index a CompositeType. It seems this enables GEP to work with any integer value as well, I tested indexing a struct with a i16 an i64 (also through llc). This should still be adressed somewhere, unless we

what's the semantics for setCC if one of the operands is NULL pointer? %ptr=alloc int seteq int*, %pt, NULL what's the result for the second instruction? How about setne, setlt, setgt, setle, and setge? Thanks! Jianzhong

I don't think this is right. According to llvm documentation: The index types specified for the 'getelementptr' instruction depend on the pointer type that is being indexed into. Pointer and array types can use a 32-bit or 64-bit integer type but the value will always be sign extended to 64-bits. Structure and packed structure types require i32 constants. Evan On Jul 10,

Hi all, any comments about this patch? I'd like to get it out of my working copy :-) Gr. Matthijs > Index: lib/VMCore/Type.cpp > =================================================================== > --- lib/VMCore/Type.cpp (revision 53136) > +++ lib/VMCore/Type.cpp (working copy) > @@ -394,9 +394,8 @@ > > bool StructType::indexValid(const Value *V) const { >

On 12/15/10 2:37 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > Hamid 2C wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I am working on some old code which was compiled against llvm-2.5. >> Anyway, in some places I, AllocationInst is used (e.g. to ensure the >> instruction's type). Even in your current documentation >> (http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html), I found an example that >>

I've made all the suggested changes - however, I'm having a bit of problem running the tests. I started "make check" and several hours later it had only made it through about 1/3 of the tests. I'm not sure what the deal is. On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote: > > OK

Hi all, I am working on some old code which was compiled against llvm-2.5. Anyway, in some places I, AllocationInst is used (e.g. to ensure the instruction's type). Even in your current documentation (http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html), I found an example that uses this instruction. If I got it correctly, this istruction (AllocationInst) has been removed from llvm instruction set.