similar to: [LLVMdev] use of CallInst()

On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 22:44 -0600, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > To create a new CallInst I used to call the following constructor: > > CallInst(Value *F, const std::vector<Value*> &Par, const std::string > &Name = "", Instruction *InsertBefore = 0); > > However, it seems as though that constructor has been removed. I assume > that I'm suppossed to

Thanks for the help Reid! I frequently look at the online doxygen, but sometimes its difficult to determine the correct replacement when a method is removed from LLVM. In this particular case, I knew which new CallInst constructor to use, I just couldn't figure out the proper syntax. At any rate, I really appreciate your help!! Reid Spencer wrote: > On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 22:44 -0600,

> Args needs to be an array of the arguments and NumArgs needs to be the > size of the array. If you have a std::vector then you can just: > > new CallInst(F, &ArgVec[0], ArgVec.size(), ...) Doesn't the code above make an assumption about how std::vector is implemented? If ArgVec is defined as std::vector<Value*> ArgVec; then &ArgVec[0] returns a Value**. Let

Hello; I am working on porting a tool written for LLVM3.5 to LLVM10. There used to be a call instruction with the signature static CallInst * Create (Value *F, Value *Actual, const Twine &NameStr="", Instruction *InsertBefore=0) Can anyone please explain what it supposed to do? What was F and Actual? Thank you so much. -- Dr. Arnamoy Bhattacharyya R&D Compiler Engineer

What is the difference between a CallInst and an InvokeInst in LLVM? Is an InvokeInst a CallInst that can throw an exception? Thanks, Ryan

On Monday 02 July 2007 23:24, David A. Greene wrote: > > > - Changing the API > > > a) Template it to take two iterators. This causes code size bloat. > > This seems like the right solution to me. Unless llvm is running on > extremely limited memory embedded systems, the extra code space > shouldn't be an issue. It turns out this wasn't quite a simple as

On Apr 29, 2008, at 1:27 AM, Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi all, > > I have reported more than enough about the space savings achieved > and the associated costs, here comes the current patch for review. > > Since this one is substantially smaller than the previous one, I did > not cut it in pieces. The front part is about headers and the rest > the .cpp and other files. Hi

On Monday 02 July 2007 16:26, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Nick Lewycky wrote: > > I've been running LLVM with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG (extra checks) turned on to > > see what would happen, and it's been a complete disaster. Well, that's a bit harsh, isn't it? It's finding bugs, just like it's supposed to. :) I believe I've started to run into

My friends, I ran a function pass on a .bc file, intending to insert a CallInst to my self-made check function. The compilation is successful. BUT after I ran that pass on the .bc file, the size of the file didn't get any bigger!! Does this mean my instrumentation work failed?? BTW the opt command I use is "opt -load ../../../Debug+Asserts/lib/Hello.so -hello <hello.bc> -o

Hi all， Im trying to instrument this hello function right before the instruction that call the "puts" function(the source code is as follow). Now I can compile the pass without errors, but when run the pass with opt tool, it broke down. The diagnose is something like Referencing function in another module! %CallCheck = call i32 @fib() Broken module found, compilation aborted! Does

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, David A. Greene wrote: > On Monday 02 July 2007 23:24, David A. Greene wrote: >>>> - Changing the API >>>> a) Template it to take two iterators. This causes code size bloat. >> >> This seems like the right solution to me. Unless llvm is running on >> extremely limited memory embedded systems, the extra code space >>

I've been having somewhat semi-random crashes that seem to be related to my use of Argument objects, usually when I then try to use them for processing, for examples in a CallInst. Do I need to copy or wrap the Argument if I want to use it as a Value? Or can I just use the reference that I am getting (multiple times)? I think there is probably something very fundamental about the

Thank you Tim. So I guess the second argument (e.g. Actual) is just the argument to function "F" So in the LLVM-10, the equivalent will be just CallInst * Create (FunctionCallee Func, ArrayRef< Value *> Args...), where I push the "Actual" argument to the ArrayRef and then create the call? On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 10:15 AM Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com>

I figured that my opt command is wrong! How to specify the output file anyway?? if I want hello.bc to be input file and newhello.bc to be output file, is the opt command go like this? opt -load ../../../Debug+Asserts/lib/Hello.so -hello <hello.bc> -o newhello.bc ?? -- 祝好！ 甄凯

Hi, I got upset.. What does “Broken module found, compilation aborted!” mean really?? what‘s “broken module“?? -- 祝好！ 甄凯 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2012-04-09 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: 甄凯(ZhenKai)

Hi all, I wrote a function pass. In the pass, it ran through all the instruction that call to functions. When arriving at the exact function that I m interested in, it would insert a self-made function. Now I've finished the pass, the compilation is successful. The pass can find the function I like and can insert the CallInst to call my check function. BUT, when running the

Hi, I don't think the code you pasted can be the correct code, where does FibF come from? Anyway, the problem is that you're calling the FibF from Module A, however you defined it for Module B. You need to insert the FibF function into the Module that you're running. To do this override "virtual bool doInitialization(Module &M);" and insert FibF into M. Joey 2012/4/9

I'm using LLVM 3.3 Release. From the Class Reference Page. CallInst has a member function : static CallInst * Create (Value *Func, ArrayRef< Value * > Args, const Twine &NameStr="", Instruction *InsertBefore=0) This is what I want to use! the default name is "" and I also use that . Thanks! ----- Kind Regards! -JinHuang -- View this message in context:

Thank you very much! To make it simpler, I may as well just implement the self-written "check function" in C language instead of wrapping it in LLVM module. According to the hint you give me, all I need to do is as follow(?) 1. Implement the "Check function" in the check.c file; 2. Add the check function into the module(the Hello1.bc file which I will run the functionPass on)

That sounds like a good general plan, yes! Joey 2012/4/9 15102925731 <zhenkaixd at 126.com> > Thank you very much! > > To make it simpler, I may as well just implement the self-written "check > function" in C language instead of wrapping it in LLVM module. *According > to the hint you give me, all I need to do is as follow(?)* > > 1. Implement the