similar to: [LLVMdev] Help getting condition of branch instructions in pass

Hello all, I have written a pass, which replaces condition branchinst using indirectBr to obfuscate program. The origin IR is as the following: br i1 %1, label %2, label %3 And the transformed IR is as the follwoing: %4 = select i1 %1, i8* blockaddress(@func, %2), i8* blockaddress(@func, %3) indirectbr i8* %4, [label %2, label %3] The pass's core function is as the

With Debug mode, it shows the assert error: Assertion failed: (I != BlockLiveness.end() && "Predecessor not found"), function calculateLocalLiveness, file lib/CodeGen/StackColoring.cpp, line 782. 1. <eof> parser at end of file 2. Code generation 3. Running pass 'Function Pass Manager' on module 'busybox/archival/libarchive/decompress_bunzip2.c'. 4. Running

Hi all, I've been looking into how to make llvm bitcode files smaller. There is one simple change that appears to shrink linked bitcode files by about 15%. See this spreadsheet for some rough data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjRrJHQc4_bddEtJdjdIek5fMDdIdFFIZldZXzdWa0E The change is in how operand ids are encoded in bitcode files. Rather than use an "absolute

Hi Jan, > I've been looking into how to make llvm bitcode files smaller. There is one > simple change that appears to shrink linked bitcode files by about 15%. See > this spreadsheet for some rough data: > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjRrJHQc4_bddEtJdjdIek5fMDdIdFFIZldZXzdWa0E the improvement is wonderful! ... > In any case, the patch is attached if

Hello, I'm finding problems with BackEdgeTaken count calculation in even simple fortran loops with gfortran-4.6 + DragonEgg 3.0. Even for simple double loops like this one: program test2 integer i,j,k dimension k(100,100) do j=1,100 do i=1,100 k(i,j) = i enddo enddo write(*,*) k(1,30) end make the ScalarEvolution

Attached 2012/2/8 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > Mmm, sorry, the patch I posted crashes if ExitBr is null (which it may > be ...) , this one should be ok (and passess all the ScalarEvolution > tests in LLVM): > > diff --git a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp > index daf7742..b10fab2 100644 > ---

Well, it wasn't intended as a "real" patch to be included , but more as a "proof of concept" for a solution. Do you think it is a valid solution and I'm correct in my assumption? If so then I'll clean up the patch and attach a testcase for inclusion. Thanks! Marcello 2012/2/9 Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com>: > Your patch should include a testcase,

This is the .ll for that graph (attached). I think I understand what you are saying. This particular testcase returns CNC not because the exit block doesn't have a unique predecessor, but because the unique predecessor (the inner loop block) has a successor that is inside the loop (in this case itself, because it's the inner loop block). That doesn't change, anyway, the assuption that

Mmm, sorry, the patch I posted crashes if ExitBr is null (which it may be ...) , this one should be ok (and passess all the ScalarEvolution tests in LLVM): diff --git a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp index daf7742..b10fab2 100644 --- a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp +++ b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp @@ -4293,9 +4293,15 @@

Your patch should include a testcase, see test/Analysis/ScalarEvolution for examples. "BranchInst* " should be "BranchInst *". You should have spaces after the // in your comments. One of the comment lines isn't indented properly. Nick On 8 February 2012 12:05, Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com> wrote: > Attached > > 2012/2/8 Marcello Maggioni

On 8 February 2012 15:50, Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com> wrote: > Well, it wasn't intended as a "real" patch to be included , but more > as a "proof of concept" for a solution. Do you think it is a valid > solution and I'm correct in my assumption? If so then I'll clean up > the patch and attach a testcase for inclusion. > I'm

This is instead a very simple (handmade) test case that triggers the problem (attached) Also a more conforming patch has been attached 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > This is the .ll for that graph (attached). I think I understand what > you are saying. > This particular testcase returns CNC not because the exit block > doesn't have a unique predecessor,

FInally I had the time to complete everything up. Now I included the test case in the patch and the testcase runs with the LLVM tests system. 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > This is instead a very simple (handmade) test case that triggers the > problem (attached) > Also a more conforming patch has been attached > > 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms

Hi, I just thought of trying vmkit and checked out the source from the svn repo a few minutes back. The build is failing with the following error. llvm[4]: Compiling CGCleanup.cpp for Release+Asserts build CGCleanup.cpp:507:36: error: no member named 'getCaseSuccessor' in 'llvm::SwitchInst'; did you mean 'getSuccessor'?

Hi, As part of an ongoing work to extend the GraphDiff (this models a CFG view), I came across the need to have a common interface for accessing successors/predecessors in various IR units, such that a type such as `typename NodeT::succ_iterator` could be used in templated code. In particular, the need arose for BasicBlocks, MachineBasicBlocks, VPBlockBase and clang::CFGBlock. The least invasive

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > However, it does not remove all the critical edges. I am getting a very > weird dataflow graph (even without the Break Critical edges pass). The > dataflow generated by MachineFunction::dump() for the program below is > given here: > http://compilers.cs.ucla.edu/fernando/projects/soc/images/loop_no_crit2.pdf ... > The

Hi Dave, It may be possible to do this with the current API, but what I was looking for is a common API for existing block types. For example there is no succ_begin for Machine BasicBlock. I'm looking to make the CFGSuccessors and CFGPredecessors classes in CFGDiff.h templated, and this needs a common API for all types instantiations. Does this clarify your question or did I misunderstand

> On 25 May 2018, at 01:46, Aaron via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > LLVM optimization pass gives an error "Terminator found in the middle of a basic block!" since basic block IR may have multiple "ret" instructions. It seems LLVM does not accept multiple return in a basic block by default. > Yes, if you’re inserting

Hi all, LLVM optimization pass gives an error "Terminator found in the middle of a basic block!" since basic block IR may have multiple "ret" instructions. It seems LLVM does not accept multiple return in a basic block by default. Is there a specific optimization or pass that I can enable to remove unreachable codes in basic blocks? Best, Aaron -------------- next part

Hi All, I need to remove successors from every basic block to insert new ones I tried this code, but it doesn't work void RemoveSuccessor(TerminatorInst *TI, unsigned SuccNum) { assert(SuccNum < TI->getNumSuccessors() && "Trying to remove a nonexistant successor!"); // If our old successor block contains any PHI nodes, remove the entry in the //