similar to: [LLVMdev] Instruction ctor: insertBefore

Hi Reid, > Instructions are members of a linked list. Consequently if you insert > some Instruction, that instruction gets changed. So, its not const. > > Simple enough? Yes, thank you. I started thinking if "mutable" is right here, but that's long philosophical issue ;-) - Volodya

Vladimir, Instructions are members of a linked list. Consequently if you insert some Instruction, that instruction gets changed. So, its not const. Simple enough? Reid. On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 01:02, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Hi, > the insertBefore parameter, present in all constructors, is declared like > this: > > Instruction *InsertBefore=0 > > any reason there's

I'm not opposed to mutable and its probably reasonable in this case. However, I'd defer to Chris' opinion for anything in VMCore. We try to limit the number of changes/additions there because the impact can be quite large if something goes wrong. Reid. On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 04:41, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Hi Reid, > > > Instructions are members of a linked list.

I've just had some fun, because I wanted to override FunctionPass::addAnalysisUsage, but forgot "const" after the method name -- so instead of overriding I've just created a new unrelated method. After spending some time on this, I've decided to add -Woverloaded-virtual option to compiler to catch such cases. However, it also gives some warnings on LLVM code:

Hello, I've just tries make && make install on a fresh CVS tree, and get: llvm[0]: Installing include files /bin/sh: line 1: pax: command not found Two questions. 1. Why install process requires some nonstandard tool? Is it possible to get away without it. 2. autoconf/configure.ac has this: AC_PATH_PROG(PAX, [pax], [pax]) but Makefile.rules uses plain 'pax',

The above-mentioned test contains this: long B53 = - (1LL << 53); strictly speaking, this is not correct code. The C standard says about shift: "if the value of the first operator is ... or greater than ... the width of the promoted left operand, the behaviour is underfined". Thouhts? - Volodya

Reid Spencer wrote: > Volodya, > > I think you may need to update your CFE and rebuild. I compiled the test > using my local build and I didn't get the results you see below. I'm > also very surprised to see this output. The first %tmp.11 should have > been %tmp.1 .. not sure how it got corrupted. In any event, the > attachment is obviously generated by code that runs

Hi! When I go to http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/doxygen/annotated.html and click on link for, say, "llvm::Module", I've told that the target page does not exist. Same happens for llvm::Value, and in fact everything under "llvm" namespace. Any idea what's wrong? - Volodya

Vladimir Prus wrote: > Vladimir Prus wrote: > > The above-mentioned test contains this: > > > > long B53 = - (1LL << 53); > > > > strictly speaking, this is not correct code. The C standard says about > > shift: "if the value of the first operator is ... or greater than ... the > > width of the promoted left operand, the behaviour is

Hi, I have two questions about the above method of the SelectionDAGISel class. 1. The overrides in PPCDAGToDAGISel and in I64DAGToDAGISel are identical (except for PPCISD::FIRST_NUMBER vs. IA64ISD::FIRST_NUMBER). Maybe, this means that it would be better if SelectionDAGISel had default implementation? That would remove this code duplication. If desired, SelectionDAGISel can have both

I've another problem. There's one register, gr6, which is used to return high part of return value for functions returning 64-bit values. For such functions, the register should not be saved, naturally. But when function does not return 64-bit value, then the register must be saved. How can I express this in .td file? - Volodya

Hello, after some time I'm trying to build my code with the current CVS of LLVM, and have a problem. The mentioned file, around line 184, contains: if (FixedSlot == FixedSpillSlots+NumFixedSpillSlots) { // Nope, just spill it anywhere convenient. FrameIdx = FFI->CreateStackObject(RegInfo->getSpillSize(Reg)/8,

Hello, I'm playing with alias analysis, using the following program: %i = external global int ; <int*> [#uses=2] implementation ; Functions: int %_Z3bari(int %p) { entry: %tmp.0 = load int* %i ; <int> [#uses=1] %tmp.1 = setgt int %tmp.0, 10 ; <bool> [#uses=1] br bool %tmp.1, label %then, label %UnifiedReturnBlock then:

Hi, say I've a LLVM module with a call instruction. The called function is "pure", that is it has no side-effects at all. How can I communicate this to LLVM, so that the function call can be removed if the return value is never used? Thanks, Volodya

Hello, in the implementation of some analysis, I need to change the program and then invoke Mem2Reg pass. That pass, in turn, requires other analysis, so I must use PassManager. Here's the code I ended up with: bool runOnFunction(llvm::Function& m) { visit(m); ExistingModuleProvider mp(m.getParent());

On my target, the multiplication can involve all general purpose registers, but there's are still some restrictions: the first and the second operand as well as the result must be in different registers, and neither register can be gr7. How can I enforce this restriction on the register allocator? - Volodya

Hi, everytime one has to add instruction at the beginning of a basic block, one has to skip past PHI nodes that are already there. How about adding a new method to BasicBlock, to get that first non-PHI instruction? So, adding an instruction will be as simple as: new SomeInstruction(............., BB->getFirstNonPHI()) Patch attached. Comments? - Volodya -------------- next part

Okay, let me test with exactly your options and I'll let you know what I get. Reid. On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:53:15 +0400 Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs.msu.su> wrote: > Reid Spencer wrote: >> Volodya, >> >> I think you may need to update your CFE and rebuild. I compiled the test >> using my local build and I didn't get the results you see below. I'm

Alkis Evlogimenos wrote: > On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 04:56, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > Hello! > > Is there an (semi)automatic way to save registers used by a function? For > > example, on my target I have to store ar0-ar4 and gr0-gr4, gr5, gr6. For > > now I just emit huge prologue code to push them all to stack -- even if > > they are not modified at all. > > >

Vladimir Prus wrote: > The above-mentioned test contains this: > > long B53 = - (1LL << 53); > > strictly speaking, this is not correct code. The C standard says about > shift: "if the value of the first operator is ... or greater than ... the > width of the promoted left operand, the behaviour is underfined". Forget this, I've missed the 'LL'