similar to: [LLVMdev] Re: llvm question

Hi all, I was trying to implement an obfuscation tool for C-code on the basis of LLVM. I got a prototype of the simple obfuscation transformation which converting control flow graph to something like a state machine. I am not sure I will have time to work on extending further this tool with new transformations like opaque predicates and decided to put here source code I have by now with hope

Before I file a bug, I thought I'd check to make sure something hasn't changed. Stacker used to work in 1.2, now it fails on six tests. All six tests pertain to use of the SetLT, SetGT, SetLE, and SetGE SetCondInst. In my test programs they all fail, regardless of the values. The *only* thing I've done to Stacker is to change the base type involved in the comparison from int to long.

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

On Sun, 9 May 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > Before I file a bug, I thought I'd check to make sure something hasn't > changed. Stacker used to work in 1.2, now it fails on six tests. All six > tests pertain to use of the SetLT, SetGT, SetLE, and SetGE SetCondInst. > In my test programs they all fail, regardless of the values. > > The *only* thing I've done to Stacker is

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Chris Lattner wrote: >> Any ideas what could be wrong? > > Sorry for the delay, please try this tarball: > http://nondot.org/sabre/2006-03-02-llvm-gcc-4.tar.gz Actually, do to a recent change in CVS, this tarball will probably not work anymore. Please apply the attached (small) patch on top of it in the gcc directory. Worth noting, this front-end only works

Hi all, the small test modeling my problem is attached. (see comments in file attached) the problem is that both SetCondInst* CondInst = new SetCondInst( Instruction::SetLE, One, Two ); and SetCondInst* CondInst = new SetCondInst( Instruction::SetLE, Two, One ); have the same output... Anyone have a sharper eye?.. --- Valery A.Khamenya -------------- next part

Hi Misha, Thanks for your answer I was doing this: ======================== BasicBlock *BBlock = new BasicBlock("entry", MyFunc); ... Value *Zero = ConstantSInt::get(Type::IntTy, 0); Value *UZero = ConstantUInt::get(Type::UIntTy, 0); MallocInst* mi = new MallocInst( STyStru ); mi->setName("tmp.0"); BBlock->getInstList().push_back( mi );

It seems like you should be able to statically evaluate these if you assume that NULL is zero and alloca returns an unsigned nonzero pointer value. > 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!

This question is similar to Ryan Lefever's post on May 1, 2006 about printf declaration. In my case, I want to insert fprintf(stderr, ...) calls. I'm new to LLVM, and I don't know what's the recipe for putting together the arguments. Can someone give me basic instructions or point me in the direction on what to do? I can't find any more documentation on this. Thanks!

On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 19:47 -0500, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Paul wrote: > > I'm trying to pass an array pointer to my run-time generated module, and > > after a long time of searching for the answer, the only thing I got was > > a headache. Basically I have a few arrays (few megabytes which will > > sometimes be accessed as 8 / 16 / 32 / 64 bit

Ok, I think I figured it out. I talked to someone, and we figured out that when I make a call to printf with a constant string, I need to make a global variable and use getElementPtr to reference it. The modified call for accessing the printf is: /* m is Module*, f is Function*, i is Instruction* */ Constant* constStr = ConstantArray::get("test\n"); GlobalVariable* gv =

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, dummy1 at boxpl.com wrote: >> There are many possible ways to do this, can you be a bit more specific >> about what you're trying to do? > Here is a basic example: Ah, ok, I see what you're trying to do. Below is some *pseudo* code for the basic idea: > ============================================ > unsigned int buff[4096]; > > int main

I'm trying to insert a call to fprintf(stderr, ...). I've looked at the emitted assembly from llvm-gcc, and it consists of a LoadInst (of stderr) and CallInst. It looks like this: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %tmp.1 = load %struct._IO_FILE** %stderr ; ty=%struct._IO_FILE* %tmp.0 = call int (%struct._IO_FILE*, sbyte*, ...)* %fprintf(%struct._IO_FILE* %tmp.1, sbyte*

Hi, I am having some issues with how some of the instructions are being legalized. So this is my intial basic block. The area of concern is the last three instructions. I will pick and choose debug output to keep this small. SelectionDAG has 36 nodes: t0: ch = EntryToken t6: i32,ch = CopyFromReg t0, Register:i32 %vreg507 t2: i32,ch = CopyFromReg t0, Register:i32 %vreg17

Valery, That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this "brilliant" :) example in the cvs repository? I'd be happy to put it in. Reid. Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > Hi LLVMers, > > the example attached I have used to prove that JIT and some visible > optimizations are really invoked. > > Proved OK. I got 30% speed-up in comparison to gcc 3.3.3 >

On second thought, the makefiles don't (easily) allow this do they? You can only build one program per directory. Were you suggesting that you wanted me to move the entire directories under a "small examples" directory? Reid. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > > >>That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this

But isn't kinda silly that we transform to xor and then we transform it back. What is the advantage in doing so? Also, since we do that method, I now have to introduce setcc patterns for i1 values, instead of being able to just use logical pattern operators like not. -Dilan On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:00 AM Dilan Manatunga <manatunga at gmail.com> wrote: > For some reason I

Hi there, I'm having a hard time with promoting operands from i1 to i32 in my backend... I have to register classes, VTs are i1 and i32. The i1 registers are only for predication and conditional jumps, so I want to use them with brcond, setcc. There are no instructions to directly load a value in an i1 register or to copy between i1 and i32, so I need the DAG Legalizing Pass to not generate

Hi, I'm investigating an issue with the PTX backend I've come across (latest version from the trunk). Not being very familiar with Selection Dags, it's highly likely that I misunderstand some part of the process. I'd appreciate if someone can point me in the right direction. Here's the LLVM IR that is causing problems (I'm aware this code doesn't do anything

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > On second thought, the makefiles don't (easily) allow this do they? You can > only build one program per directory. Were you suggesting that you wanted me to > move the entire directories under a "small examples" directory? You're right. The simples way to do this would be to have: projects/ SmallExamples/