similar to: [LLVMdev] ilistification of MachineBasicBlock

Hi All, I have just started using LLVM . i am facing a issue while using ilist container. Here is a struct with ilist container as its one element. typedef ilist<Instruction *> InstListType; struct list_node { int Impact; InstListType InstList; }; list_node

Hi llvm-devel, I have migrated my codebase from llvm-3.6 to llvm 3.8.1-stable. Although I was able to resolve most of the problems, I am facing issues resolving the following: To insert an instruction immediately after the first instruction within a basic block, I first get all instructions in my basic block in an instruction container list. Once that is done, I insert my new instruction in the

I tried on a different machine x86_64 ( vs x86 ) and I don't have these issues anymore (the tests are failing on the x86 machine because of a segmentation fault) Both builds were done using: g++ (GCC) 4.2.4 (Ubuntu 4.2.4-1ubuntu4) Something should be wrong with my environment... The only differences I noticed during the compilation are the following warnings (which appear several times, but

Eric, could you tell me which version of gcc you are using (According to http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html, gcc 3.4.2 should be used but I don't know if this document is up to date regarding the required software versions) Anyway I also tried with gcc version 3.4.6 (Ubuntu 3.4.6-6ubuntu5) And now, I get a bunch of errors like this one: llvm-2.9/lib/Support/regcomp.c: In function `cset*

Yes, it is a pass. Here is a very general overview of the file structure as far as the AA is concerned. LLVM is not my strong-suit, I do hardware simulators, not compilers. using namespace llvm; char RelRecovery::ID = 0; static RegisterPass<RelRecovery> X("relRecovery", "Reliability transformation for lightweight recovery"); void

Hello all, I am working with someone else's LLVM code, which is about 8 months old. Part of this pass involves AliasAnalysis, and I'm getting the above assertion when the pass completes. The dump is as follows: -------------------------------- Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. 0xf7fdf430 in __kernel_vsyscall () (gdb) bt #0 0xf7fdf430 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xf602e921 in

"Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: >> On 2015-Oct-20, at 11:23, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >> >> I think the implicit iterator conversions are much less important >> now that we have range based for loops, but I still like having >> them. > > IMO, if a developer has an ilist iterator

Hi Bill, I am using the following version of BuildMI : MachineInstrBuilder BuildMI(MachineFunction &MF, const TargetInstrDesc &TID, unsigned DestReg) I do the following : void createInstrs(std::vector<MachineInstr *>& ilist) { Machine Instr *mi; mi = BuildMI(MF, someTID, somereg);

Jon, > You want: > TaintVar->insertAfter(FirstI); This worked! Thank you. On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > > > On 8/25/16 7:01 AM, Shehbaz Jaffer via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> I tried an alternative way of adding instruction by first getting the >> first instruction of the basic block, and then

Griffin Wright wrote: > > Hello all, > > I really, really, really need your help. This is my third email now, > please don't ignore me! I understand this must be a trivial thing, but > I've ground to a halt, and REALLY need some guidance. Please see below for > the context of my problem. I'm not trying to be a waste of time, but I'm > desperate here.

Hello all, I really, really, really need your help. This is my third email now, please don't ignore me! I understand this must be a trivial thing, but I've ground to a halt, and REALLY need some guidance. Please see below for the context of my problem. I'm not trying to be a waste of time, but I'm desperate here. I have a getAnalysisUsage method which does the following

I've been digging into some undefined behaviour stemming from how ilist is typically configured. r247937, r247944, and r247978 caused a UBSan failure to start firing on our Green Dragon bots, and after an IRC conversation between David and Nick and Mehdi, we added a blacklist: -- $echo "src:$WORKSPACE/llvm/include/llvm/CodeGen/MachineFunction.h" >> sanitize.blacklist --

I am using LLVM 2.6 and I have a question on the use of the BasicBlock::iterator to hoist loop invariant instructions to the loop preheader. When I process the instructions backward as shown in the following code, I got the following error right after the "hoist(I)" is done. Can anyone advise whether I am misusing BasicBlock::iterator? /opt/llvms/src/llvm_26/

I think the implicit iterator conversions are much less important now that we have range based for loops, but I still like having them. On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 2015-Oct-07, at 17:57, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> > wrote: > > > > I've been

AAAH! I see you are still at 2.5. Then this patch (the fix) is relevant for you: <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/ADT/ ilist.h?r1=66061&r2=68785&diff_format=h> Cheers, Gabor On 27 Sep., 05:45, hc2... at columbia.edu wrote: > Dear developers: >      When I am doing basicblock pass, I meet a bug: there is an   > iterator "I" in

Hi, Can anyone tell me how to erase an instruction, (specially a load/store instruction) ? If I use Instr->eraseFromParent(), I get following error. Note the instruction does not have any use. opt: /home/chayan/llvm/llvm-2.6/include/llvm/ADT/ilist.h:218: llvm::ilist_iterator<NodeTy>& llvm::ilist_iterator<NodeTy>::operator++() [with NodeTy = llvm::Instruction]: Assertion

Hi, I am writing an llvm pass wherein I require to iterate MachineBasicBlocks in reverse. The ilist reverse_iterator is not functioning as expected. Nor is the ilist iterator working in reverse (although -- operator is overloaded to do so). for (MachineFunction::iterator MBBI = mf_->end(), E = mf_->begin();MBBI != E; --MBBI) { MachineBasicBlock *MBB = MBBI;

Quoting Gabor Greif <ggreif at gmail.com>: Hi Gabor, I can not open the link, can you send again? > AAAH! > > I see you are still at 2.5. Then this patch (the fix) > is relevant for you: > > <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/ADT/ > ilist.h?r1=66061&r2=68785&diff_format=h> > > Cheers, > > Gabor > > >

> On 2016-Jul-11, at 09:05, Ulrich Weigand <ulrich.weigand at de.ibm.com> wrote: > > uweigand accepted this revision. > uweigand added a comment. > This revision is now accepted and ready to land. > > I'll defer to your expertise on that. Patch looks good to me. > > I guess I'm not fully familiar with some of the C++ language details here. Would you

LLVMers, I'm running into a fair bit of confusion as I start to *use* LLVM to build my own compiler. The issues relate to what is in a given .a or .o file, why linking takes so long, and getting LLVM header files to include correctly, and the lack of viable "install" target. I'll deal with each of these in turn: For my own project, I've added an AC_CHECK_LIB line to check