similar to: [LLVMdev] Instruction::getNext and Instruction::getPrev are private

Thanks Antont and Gabor.. I will use the iterator instead.. On 5/11/07, Anton Korobeynikov <asl at math.spbu.ru> wrote: > Hello, Ferad. > > > I switched to the upcoming version 2.0 branch and porting my code from > > 1.9. Thanks there is not a lot to do. I found that > > Instruction::getNext and Instruction::getPrev are private. Is this > > intentional? >

Hi, I switched to the upcoming version 2.0 branch and porting my code from 1.9. Thanks there is not a lot to do. I found that Instruction::getNext and Instruction::getPrev are private. Is this intentional? If yes, what would you recommend instead using them? Thanks, Ferad

Quoting Gabor Greif <ggreif at gmail.com>: Hi Gabor, I can not open the link, can you send again? > AAAH! > > I see you are still at 2.5. Then this patch (the fix) > is relevant for you: > > <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/ADT/ > ilist.h?r1=66061&r2=68785&diff_format=h> > > Cheers, > > Gabor > > >

On 27 Sep., 05:45, hc2... at columbia.edu wrote: > Dear developers: >      When I am doing basicblock pass, I meet a bug: there is an   > iterator "I" in a basicblock, and it is not pointing to the first   > instruction in this basicblock. However, "I--;" will fail by an   > assertion. Hi hc! are you on SVN trunk? Cheers, Gabor > > The basic block

AAAH! I see you are still at 2.5. Then this patch (the fix) is relevant for you: <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/ADT/ ilist.h?r1=66061&r2=68785&diff_format=h> Cheers, Gabor On 27 Sep., 05:45, hc2... at columbia.edu wrote: > Dear developers: >      When I am doing basicblock pass, I meet a bug: there is an   > iterator "I" in

I may be mistaken as I just took a quick look, but in ilist_node the function "getPrevNode()" actually calls a method on the previous node: NodeTy *getPrevNode() { NodeTy *Prev = this->getPrev(); // Check for sentinel. if (!Prev->getNext()) return 0; return Prev; } http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/ilist__node_8h_source.html#l00058 Try checking if

Benjamin Kramer wrote: > On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into >> our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run from >> a ClearCase view for automatic dependency tracking, we have been >> biten by a Linux bug, and

Hello John, I was following your procedures and I isolated the problem. The problem are represented by the basic blocks with only one element. for (Function::iterator II = F.begin(), EE = F.end(); II != EE; ++II, ++ii) { BasicBlock* BB=II; if (BB->getTerminator()) { Instruction* current = BB->getTerminator(); Instruction* previous;

On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into > our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run from > a ClearCase view for automatic dependency tracking, we have been > biten by a Linux bug, and readlink("/proc/self/exe", ...) gives >

Hi Anton, > What's the version of binutils you're using? I've seen such messages > with 2.16 series, but they were only warnings... The version of binutils is 2.17 By the way. I will use the opportunity to ask you again :) I tried to compile with gcc 4.0.4. It successfully compile LLVM but fails compiling LLVM's gcc front end. The problem is architectural 32 and 64 bit.

Chris wrote: > On Mar 26, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Gabor Greif wrote: > > here comes the patch for the first wave of Use class size reduction. > > > > I have split it into 3 files, corresponding to > > - header changes > > - implementation changes > > - applications > > nice! > > > This at the moment does not contain the description how the >

Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com > <mailto:benny.kra at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com > <mailto:gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote: > > > Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> On 13.07.2012,

Reminder... Round one has been committed as <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=107432> I hope that it got digested by now, as I plan to commit the second round tomorrow. In fact I made two test commits already: r107480 and r107580, the former of which actually uncovered some more uses of the low-level interfaces in core LLVM that have slipped through. To be

Hi all, Quoting <http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#i_malloc>: The 'malloc' instruction allocates sizeof(<type>)*NumElements bytes of memory from the operating system and returns a pointer of the appropriate type to the program. If "NumElements" is specified, it is the number of elements allocated. Obviously this does not say that the default for NumElements

On Jul 21, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Eugene Toder wrote: > Is this a recommended approach/good style/good idea to use > dyn_cast_or_null<X>(I) instead of dyn_cast_or_null<X>(*I)? (And other > is and cast functions). We generally don't want auto-dereference. There is some special magic for unwrapping Uses etc though. Is this what you're in contact with Gabor? -Chris >

On 4/22/14, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 22, 2014, at 7:28 AM, Gabor Greif <ggreif at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi devs, >> >> after my intentionally "playful" EuroLLVM presentation (*) I think it >> would be time to get serious about merging to ToT. But we should >> probably find out whether an optimized

On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > Benjamin Kramer wrote: >> On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into >>> our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run

Is this a recommended approach/good style/good idea to use dyn_cast_or_null<X>(I) instead of dyn_cast_or_null<X>(*I)? (And other is and cast functions). Eugene On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Gabor Greif <gabor at mac.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > at the moment I am trying to fix an unnecessary iterator dereferencing > in Casting.h and am uncovering several ugly

Sounds great to me Gabor. I really like your new incremental approach to this patch set. -Chris On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:59 PM, Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi all, > > I am almost ready for the last step with landing my long-standing patch. > I have converted (almost) all low-level interface users of CallInst to > respective high-level interfaces. What remains is a handful of hunks >

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com>wrote: > > On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> > wrote: > > > Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> >