similar to: [LLVMdev] ConstantInt::getRawValue

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Is there are reason why ConstantInt::getRawValue method can't be moved one > step into class hierarchy, into ConstantIntegral::getRawValue > > The reason I'd like this is that to handle both ConstantInt and ConstantBool, > I need the following: > > if (ConstantInt* CI = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(V)) { >

Chris Lattner wrote: > > If getRawValue is moved to ConstantIntegral, I'd simply write > > > > if (ConstantIntegral* CI = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(V)) { > > BuildMI(*MBB, IPt, NM::MOVE, 1, Reg).addImm(CI->getRawValue()); > > } ... > > > > which is a bit nicer. Of course, if you think it's a good idea, I can > > send a patch.

Chris Lattner wrote: >>The four leaks are caused by the ConstantBool::True >>and ConstantBool::False (1 for each object + 1 for the use list dummy) - >> unfortunately they are not so easy to wrap with accessor functions >>since they are public member variables of the ConstantBool class... If >>only everyone used the ConstantBool::get() there would be no problem,

Hi, I finally took the time to track down the remaining memory leaks beside the LeakDetector objects and TypeMaps/ValueMaps I already knew about. It turns out almost all of them came from the command line options module, so I cleaned up the patch for LeakDetector and made a new patch for CommandLine. The patches are attached to this message. That got rid of all but 4 leaks I'm getting,

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Morten Ofstad wrote: > I finally took the time to track down the remaining memory leaks beside > the LeakDetector objects and TypeMaps/ValueMaps I already knew about. It > turns out almost all of them came from the command line options module, > so I cleaned up the patch for LeakDetector and made a new patch for > CommandLine. The patches are attached to this

Morten Ofstad wrote: } Chris Lattner wrote: } >>The four leaks are caused by the ConstantBool::True } >>and ConstantBool::False (1 for each object + 1 for the use list dummy) - } >> unfortunately they are not so easy to wrap with accessor functions } >>since they are public member variables of the ConstantBool class... If } >>only everyone used the ConstantBool::get()

Ok. Let's say I have a GetElementPtrInst that is used to access structure elements. In this case the indexes will be constants and I want to get the constant values as an a native C int. Now I can iterate over all the indexes with idx_begin(). I can cast all of the indexes to a ConstantIntegral. However, I cannot cast the indexes to a ConstantSInt or ConstantUInt (cast<> throws an

> Also sprach Wojciech Stryjewski: > } Ok. Let's say I have a GetElementPtrInst that is used to access > structure > } elements. In this case the indexes will be constants and I want > to get the > } constant values as an a native C int. > } > } Now I can iterate over all the indexes with idx_begin(). I can cast > } all of the indexes to a ConstantIntegral. However,

I noticed that folding a cast of a global address to boolean doesn't work like I expected - there is a comment in the code that casts of external symbols should not happen, but I don't understand the rationale for this. // FIXME: When we support 'external weak' references, we have to prevent // this transformation from happening. In the meantime we avoid folding // any cast of

Hi, I'm trying to emit a conditional move in the ARM backend for a custom intrinsic. Basically, I want to emit the following the following instruction sequence: cmp r0, r1 moveq r2, #1 To implement this, I first emit a compare instruction and then I'm trying to emit the conditional move, which is failing. BuildMI(&MBB, DL, TII->get(ARM::CMPrr))

Hi Everyone, I'm happy to say that LLVM has made many leaps and bounds since the last update in November. Because we are bumping the major version number with this release, we're letting the release go for twice as long as our planned release schedule (6 months instead of 3). We are currently half way through the LLVM 2.0 development cycle. So far, many important and invasive changes

Dear All, I'm working on an X86 MachineFunctionPass that adds prefetch instructions to a function. I have code that adds a "prefetchnta <constant address>" instruction to x86 32-bit code. What I want to do is to add a "prefetchnta <constant address>" instruction to x86_64 code. The code for adding the 32-bit instruction is:

Hi All. I'm writing storeRegToStackSlot and loadFromStackSlot function for my Target. This Target can store/load one byte (not all word) from FrameIndex. If I need to store 16 bit register I will must to split it to two instruction like this: BuildMI(MBB, MI, dl, get(Z80::LD8xmr)) .addFrameIndex(FrameIndex).addImm(0) .addReg(SrcReg, 0, Z80::subreg_lo); BuildMI(MBB, MI, dl,

>> // Increment loop variable and jmp >> BuildMI(*MBB_erase, MBB_erase->end(), db, >> TII->get(X86::ADD64ri32),reg).addReg(reg).addImm(8); > > It looks like this instruction is defining virtual register "reg" the second time. Thx for your answer... Why would it define it again? I just want to use this register and add something to it... Cheers

Hi, I'm having trouble using virtual register in the X86 backend. I implemented a new intrinsic and I use a custom inserter. The goal of the intrinsic is to set the content of the stack to zero at the end of each function. Here is my code: MachineBasicBlock * X86TargetLowering::EmitBURNSTACKWithCustomInserter( MachineInstr *MI, MachineBasicBlock

Thank you for your help Tom you are totally right with the registers but the command you suggest also doesn't work. After some research I found the following thread on the mailing list: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-February/110086.html With your help and the information about the condition codes I was able to resolve the error:         BuildMI(BB, BB.end(), DL,

-----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of John Criswell Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:42 PM To: Steve Checkoway Cc: LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Need Help Understanding Operands in X86 MachineFunctionPass ... > >> The code for adding the 32-bit instruction is: >> >>

On Sep 11, 2012, at 10:57 AM, John Criswell wrote: > I'm working on an X86 MachineFunctionPass that adds prefetch instructions to a function. I have code that adds a "prefetchnta <constant address>" instruction to x86 32-bit code. What I want to do is to add a "prefetchnta <constant address>" instruction to x86_64 code. Given that you don't actually

On 03/22/2018 09:29 AM, Julius Hiller via llvm-dev wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I'm working on a MachineFunctionPass that inserts a list of instructions into an Module so a later Pass can work on them. > To do so I load a dummy .ll file created from a main stub, create the needed function stubs (ModulePass), insert Blocks and create instructions using BuildMI. > I started with

Hi, I'm still having problems implementing my custom inserter in the X86 backend. I found a solution to my last problem (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-October/078296.html), by using a virtual register. The binary works when it's compiled in -O0, but not in -O1,-O2,... I really can't figure what I'm doing wrong... Any idea? Here is the code of my custom