similar to: [LLVMdev] subtle problem with inst_iterator

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > and since result of *it is considered to be rvalue it can't be accepted by > this operator. The complete discussion is in > > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1385.htm > > I'd suggest to apply the following patch which makes operator* return > reference to pointer. It makes my code compile and the rest

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > and since result of *it is considered to be rvalue it can't be accepted > > by this operator. The complete discussion is in > > > > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1385.htm > > > > I'd suggest to apply the following patch which makes operator* return >

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Yea, I've noticed that. However, it looks like inst_iterator is iterator over > pointers. Oh, wait a minite, that's the current code: > > inline IIty operator*() const { return BI; } > inline IIty operator->() const { return operator*(); } > > So operator* works as if value_type is Instruction*, but operator->

Chris Lattner wrote: > > inline IIty operator*() const { return BI; } > > inline IIty operator->() const { return operator*(); } > > > > So operator* works as if value_type is Instruction*, but operator-> works > > as if value_type is Instruction. Hmm ;-) > > Yeah, fishy huh? :) Yea, a bit. I've decided that before changing that I'd better

LLVM has two similar bits of infrastructure: a simplifyInstructionsInBlock function and a SimplifyInstructions pass, both intended to be lightweight “fix up this code without doing serious optimizations” functions, as far as I can tell. I don’t think either is used in a performance-sensitive place in-tree; the former is mostly called in minor places when doing CFG twiddling, and the latter seems

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > Yeah, fishy huh? :) > > Yea, a bit. I've decided that before changing that I'd better find other > problems, if any, so I run inst_iterator via checks provided by > Boost.Iterators. > > First problem is that inst_iterator (and actually InstIterator class template) > is not Assignable, because it has a reference data

Hello all, I am a LLVM newer who want to obtain the use-def chain for all instruction of a sample code, for this purpose i use the following code. ///////////////sample code:///////////////////////// #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <time.h> #define ARRAY_SIZE 5 int main() { int x, y, holder; int k,z,f,i; z=0; f=0; k=0; for(x = 0; x < ARRAY_SIZE;

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:50 AM, mats petersson <mats at planetcatfish.com> wrote: > It will iterate over the instructions in the order that they are stored in > the module/function/basicblock that they belong to. And that SHOULD, > assuming llvm-dis does what it is expected to do, be the same order. > Thanks for the reply. What about instruction ordering across basic blocks?

On 6/16/15 1:09 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > Anirudh Sivaraman wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:50 AM, mats >> petersson<mats at planetcatfish.com> wrote: >>> It will iterate over the instructions in the order that they are >>> stored in >>> the module/function/basicblock that they belong to. And that SHOULD, >>> assuming llvm-dis does

Does inst_iterator (http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#iterating-over-the-instruction-in-a-function) guarantee that the iterated instructions are in program order: the order of instructions printed by llvm-dis? Thanks in advance, Anirudh

Hi, I am trying to generate the DFG of machine functions. Initially, I added a pass to generate the DFG of LLVM IR functions. This was based on the mail thread - http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-September/025582.html. This pass worked fine and I was able to generate DFG of LLVM IR functions. Later, I ported the DFG pass code for machine functions. I ported the InstIterator.h

I tried debugging it and the issue seems to be in the implementation of MachineInstrIterator.h and the way it interacts with GraphWriter.h functions. I found this by replacing the ( template <> struct GraphTraits<MCDFGraph<MachineFunction*> >) with a similar MCDFGraph based template of CFG similar to the one in MachineFunction.h (similarly replacing the DOTGraphTraits with the

I am looping through all instructions in a Function and depending on what I found I may or may not insert code. Despite the fact that I'm only actually inserting *before* instruction I have a infinite loop when I do something like below. For awhile it was simple enough to just increment i enough times but now I need something better. for(inst_iterator i = inst_begin(F); i != inst_end(F); ++i)

On Aug 29, 2011, at 12:38 PM, ret val wrote: > I am looping through all instructions in a Function and depending on > what I found I may or may not insert code. Despite the fact that I'm > only actually inserting *before* instruction I have a infinite loop > when I do something like below. For awhile it was simple enough to > just increment i enough times but now I need

Andrew Clinton wrote: > Most of my programs contain loops that the LoopDeletion pass is unable > to remove. It appears that the following code in LoopDeletion.cpp:152 > is the culprit: > > ScalarEvolution& SE = getAnalysis<ScalarEvolution>(); > const SCEV *S = SE.getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(L); > if (isa<SCEVCouldNotCompute>(S)) > return

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:38 PM, ret val <retval386 at gmail.com> wrote: > I am looping through all instructions in a Function and depending on > what I found I may or may not insert code. Despite the fact that I'm > only actually inserting *before* instruction I have a infinite loop > when I do something like below. For awhile it was simple enough to > just increment i

Most of my programs contain loops that the LoopDeletion pass is unable to remove. It appears that the following code in LoopDeletion.cpp:152 is the culprit: ScalarEvolution& SE = getAnalysis<ScalarEvolution>(); const SCEV *S = SE.getMaxBackedgeTakenCount(L); if (isa<SCEVCouldNotCompute>(S)) return Changed; So, LoopDeletion thinks my loops might be infinite so it

Hi, I am writing an analysis which requires creating worklist of basic blocks. The worklist should be in FIFO order. I checked SmallVector (and similar others) and found out this is working in LIFO order when I use the functions push_back and pop_back_val to insert and delete elements in the worklist. Can someone suggest an appropriate DS to implement my worklist. Note: I am not concerned about

On 4/24/2013 8:05 PM, Nadav Rotem wrote: > > Everything. This includes all of the custom lowering code for all of the > targets, all of dagcombine, and maybe all of the patterns in the TD files. I may have missed the discussion, but why are we trying to move away from the SelectionDAG? Are there specific problems that we don't want to fix or live with? If so, what are they?

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:58 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Manman Ren <manman.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> There are a few places where we break the assumption: >> 1> formal_parameter constructed in DwarfDebug when adding attribute type >> we call SPCU->addType(Arg, ATy),