similar to: [LLVMdev] Getting the target information of a branch instruction

I think you can refer to lib/VMCore/AsmWriter.cpp for these things. E.g., You can use 'if(I.isTerminator())' if a instruction 'I' is terminator. You can use 'if (isa<BranchInst>(I))' if a instruction 'I' is 'br' instruction. and so on... Thx, Seung Jae Lee ---- Original message ---- >Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 17:15:00 -0400 (EDT) >From: abhi232

Thanks a lot for the help guys.. I will try to get the information on these lines... Thank you once again... Will bug you guys after some time now. :) > I think you can refer to lib/VMCore/AsmWriter.cpp for these things. > > E.g., > You can use 'if(I.isTerminator())' if a instruction 'I' is terminator. > You can use 'if (isa<BranchInst>(I))' if a

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 abhi232 at cc.gatech.edu wrote: > Hello all, > I am new to the llvm infrastructure so if this question is already > resolved please redirect me to that link. > > I am writing a pass for flow sensitive and context sensitive alias > analysis.for that i require the previous and next instruction of all the > instructions.Is there an intrinsic that can help me

> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 abhi232 at cc.gatech.edu wrote: >> Hello all, >> I am new to the llvm infrastructure so if this question is already >> resolved please redirect me to that link. >> >> I am writing a pass for flow sensitive and context sensitive alias >> analysis.for that i require the previous and next instruction of all the >> instructions.Is there

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: Sorry I never responded to this: > In the literature (see below for a reference), when a dominance frontier > is computed, it is computed from a CFG that contains a dummy entry node > and dummy exit node. Further, those dummy nodes are potential members > of the (post-)dominance frontier for a given basic block. In LLVM, I > could not

In the literature (see below for a reference), when a dominance frontier is computed, it is computed from a CFG that contains a dummy entry node and dummy exit node. Further, those dummy nodes are potential members of the (post-)dominance frontier for a given basic block. In LLVM, I could not figure out a way to determine if the dummy entry node is a member of the post-dominance frontier of

Hi Bill, Thanks a lot for your response.But my problem still remains.The thing is i am having a data type std::vector<Value*> as i am checking for the variables in Store Instructions and Malloc Instructions.For store the case is straightforward as discussed earlier.I want the same Value* variable for malloc inst as well. bcos i cannot have a different set for only instructions. can there be

On 7/23/07, abhi232 at cc.gatech.edu <abhi232 at cc.gatech.edu> wrote: > Hi Bill, > Thanks a lot for your response.But my problem still remains.The thing is i > am having a data type std::vector<Value*> as i am checking for the > variables in Store Instructions and Malloc Instructions.For store the case > is straightforward as discussed earlier.I want the same Value*

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Nuno Lopes <nunoplopes at sapo.pt> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Many thanks for working on this! > SSI/e-SSA is the only way I'm aware of for doing efficient sparse > analyses, so I'm definitely in favor of adding support for it in LLVM! > > I read the discussion so far and did a cursory review of the patches, and > I have just a

Hey folks, After a long amount of discussion both offline and on, I put a pass/intrinsic to add extended SSA up at http://reviews.llvm.org/D29316. Sean asked me to share it more broadly on llvm-dev, so here you go :) For those not familiar with extended-SSA, it's described in the paper "ABCD: Eliminating Array Bounds Checks on Demand". There is a very large amount of explanation

Hi, I have this piece of code: tm = local ? localtime(&curr) : gmtime(&curr); if (!tm) return NULL; which translates into something like: ---------------------------------------------- entry: %iftmp.0 = alloca %struct.tm*, align 8 %tm = alloca %struct.tm*, align 8 ... // Declares iftmp.0 as iftmp.0 call void @llvm.dbg.declare( { }* %iftmp.0, { }* bitcast

I'm attempting to modify a parser generator to emit LLVM code instead of C. So far the experience has been trivial, but I am now running into an error regarding labels that I can't seem to solve. Situation 1: A label is used immediately after a void function call (l6 in this case): <snip> %tmp26 = load i32* @yybegin, align 4 %tmp27 = load i32* @yyend, align 4 call void

Hi, Can any llvm pass change simple return branch into select/return pair? For example: define i10 @mod_N(i10 zeroext %a) zeroext { entry: %tmp2 = icmp ugt i10 %a, -400 ; <i1> [#uses=1] br i1 %tmp2, label %cond_true, label %return cond_true: ; preds = %entry %tmp5 = add i10 %a, 400 ; <i10> [#uses=1] ret i10 %tmp5 return: ; preds = %entry ret

Hi all, Can anybody tell me how to generate a mov instruction in llvm. I found out there is a MemMove Inst but I dont think that is what I want. I want to bypass a load instruction. So i need to generate a mov instruction which will help me remove the redundant load. Thanks -- Abhinav Karhu MS Computer Science Georgia Institute of Technology

Hi all, When compiling some programs using the Mips backend i'm getting this assert message on lib/CodeGen/LiveInterval.cpp:227: "Range is not entirely in interval!" I don't know yet if it's something that is missing on the backend code or why the range to be removed it outside the interval, does anyone have any clue? A more detailed output is attached. The program i tried

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2207 Bug ID: 2207 Summary: Potential NULL deference, found using coverity Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: -current Hardware: Other OS: FreeBSD Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: sshd Assignee:

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Karhu, Abhinav R <akarhu3 at gatech.edu> wrote: > > Hi all, > Can anybody tell me how to generate a mov instruction in llvm. I found out there is a MemMove Inst but I dont think that is what I want. > I want to bypass a load instruction. So i need to generate a mov instruction which will help me remove the redundant load. At the LLVM IL level,

Hello Everyone, I am trying to create two modules in LLVM, where first module contains the definition of a function, gcd in this example and another module contains a call to this function. My example is based on the following tutorial, with a few changes. http://llvm.org/releases/2.6/docs/tutorial/JITTutorial2.html When I execute the verifier pass on my modules, it complains that the

Hi, I'm building a little JIT that creates functions to do array manipulations, eg. sum all the elements of a double* array. I'm writing this in python, generating llvm assembly intructions and piping that through a call to ParseAssemblyString, ExecutionEngine, etc. It's working OK on integer values, but i'm getting nasty floating point exceptions when i try this on double*

According to the docs, InsertBranch should only be called if AnalyzeBranch returns success. But in targets (like ARM or Sparc) that don't implement them, the following test fails: ----------------------------------- void %__gcov_init() { entry: switch uint 0, label %cond_true.i [ uint 0, label %UnifiedReturnBlock uint 875573313, label