similar to: [LLVMdev] Cloning BasicBlock

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 09:12 -0800, Sandra Johnson wrote: > Hi , > I am trying to clone a BasicBlock. I want both to co-exist and I have > introduced > a conditional branch to the original or the cloned BB. I have a pass I haven't commited that does just this. Well, it does so to implement Arnold and Ryder style profiling. I can send you a copy of that if you want (I hope to

Hello Andrew , Yes , I have missed the phi node since my paths merge together. I'll try this out. I am implementing a timer based profiling scheme and hope your code will be useful for me. Please send me a copy of your code. Thanks Sandra Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 09:12 -0800, Sandra Johnson wrote: > Hi , > I am trying

Hi all, I am trying to write a pass where i am creating a clone of a function (the only difference being, the new function returns void , instead of any value). I am creating a new Function Type with a void return type (rest being the same as original function), and using this i am creating a new function body. Then, i clone the body of the old function into new function, but when ever i

Hi, I'm gonna try to give some feedback, but I have only been working with LLVM for a few days, so don't take what I'm saying without verifying :-) > BasicBlock *ProgSlicer::CloneBasicBlock(const BasicBlock *BB, > DenseMap<const Value*, Value*> &ValueMap, > const char *NameSuffix, Function *F) { > > BasicBlock

Hi, For the following code const Type * Int32Type = IntegerType::getInt32Ty(getGlobalContext()); AllocaInst* newInst = new AllocaInst(Int32Type, 0, "flag", Bb); Bb->getInstList().push_back(newInst); It gives me the error " error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'llvm::AllocaInst' AllocaInst* newInst = new

Hi, I am working on a project with LLVM. What I need to do is to generate/insert some dummy/dead basic blocls which never have chance to be executed and put some instructions in those dummy/dead basic blocks. So far, the dummy/dead BB insertion is done. I am trying insert instructions in those dummy/dead BB. Actually, I can insert the legal instructions to dummy/dead BB, however, I really want

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Morten Ofstad wrote: > It seems the CloneBasicBlock function defined in Transforms/Utils/Cloning.h > doesn't change the parent BasicBlock of the contained instructions when it > has cloned them -- Is this a bug or a feature? I'm not sure I understand. This code: Instruction *NewInst = II->clone(); ..

Hi, I need to insert new instruction into every basic block like x=1 or while loop I tried this code, but it doesn't work Type * Int32Type = IntegerType::getInt32Ty(getGlobalContext()); AllocaInst* newInst = new AllocaInst(Int32Type,"flag", Bb); Bb->getInstList().push_back(newInst); the error: void llvm::SymbolTableListTraits<llvm::Instruction,

Thank you for your help I tried Instruction* p=&( Bb->front()); Type * Int32Type = IntegerType::getInt32Ty(getGlobalContext()); AllocaInst* newInst = new AllocaInst(Int32Type,"flag", p); that works well but I need to store the value of the variable too. What's the method that could be used to store specific value?? On 30 July 2013 16:01, John Criswell

On 7/30/13 7:44 AM, Rasha Omar wrote: > Hi, > I need to insert new instruction into every basic block like x=1 > or while loop > I tried this code, but it doesn't work > > Type * Int32Type = IntegerType::getInt32Ty(getGlobalContext()); > AllocaInst* newInst = new AllocaInst(Int32Type,"flag", Bb); > Bb->getInstList().push_back(newInst); The problem is

Duncan Sands <baldrick <at> free.fr> writes: > > Hi Anshul, > > > I am creating a pass that will pass loaded value by load instruction to an > > external function. > > I don't know how to do it.Please Help. > > your question is too vague for anyone to be able to help you. Add details, > for example provide the code for your pass. > >

Ralf Karrenberg wrote: > Hello everyone, > > is there any way to replace an instruction inside LLVM that is more > elegant than creating a new one, replacing uses and deleting the old one > if I only want to modify the type? It is generally not a big deal, but > the issue gets really messy if I am in the middle of iterating over uses > and start deleting some of them... >

Hi, Nick, thanks for the reply. I still have a problem: I only need to "clone" an Instruction, changing its type. That is, I would like to keep all characteristics of the old Instruction and create a new one only with a different type. I am trying create a new Instruction thus: %3 = add nsw i32 %1, %2 ; <i16> [#uses=2] //Old Instruction Value* Op0 = I->getOperand(0); Value*

It seems the CloneBasicBlock function defined in Transforms/Utils/Cloning.h doesn't change the parent BasicBlock of the contained instructions when it has cloned them -- Is this a bug or a feature? m.

On 01/24/2011 04:41 AM, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: > Hi, > > Nick, thanks for the reply. > I still have a problem: I only need to "clone" an Instruction, changing > its type. That is, I would like to keep all characteristics of the old > Instruction and create a new one only with a different type. Sure, but what about its operands? An "add" instruction

I collected a sequence of LLVM instructions, want to make a copy of each and insert them into a PREVIOUS location inside the same function (all globals and locals are properly declared before the PREVIOUS location). Here is the list of instructions I want to duplicate and insert: 0 %90 = load i32* @strstart, align 4 1 %91 = add i32 %90, 2 2 %88 = load i32* @ins_h, align 4 3 %92 =

HI, I am creating a pass that will pass loaded value by load instruction to an external function. I don't know how to do it.Please Help.

Try : INITIALIZE a1 if you didnt. if (cpProf EXISTS){ CallInst* newInst = CallInst::Create(cpProf,a1,""); if (BB->getTerminator() && CI) BB->getInstList().insert((Instruction*)CI, newInst); On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Anshul Garg <gargaa24 at gmail.com> wrote: > CallInst* newInst = CallInst::Create(cpProf,a1,""); >

Hi all, > If I read the standard correctly, the properties of these address spaces can > be fully captured by defining the relationship between every pair of address > spaces (disjoint, identical, subset/superset). > > I think it would make sense to make these relationships backend/platform > specific, but for clang and the optimization passes to properly work with > address

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > On 01/24/2011 04:41 AM, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Nick, thanks for the reply. >> I still have a problem: I only need to "clone" an Instruction, changing >> its type. That is, I would like to keep all characteristics of the old >> Instruction