similar to: [LLVMdev] Debug info for conditionally defined variables?

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 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

> 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

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

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

On Sep 29, 2010, at 8:35 AMPDT, Ralf Karrenberg wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I have stumbled upon a test case (the attached module is a slightly > reduced version) that shows extremely reduced performance on linux > compared to windows when executed using LLVM's JIT. > > We narrowed the problem down to the actual code being generated, the > source IR on both systems

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:

Hello. I have a problem which is quite basic for array optimization, amd I wonder whether I am missing something, but I could not find the LLVM pass that does it. Consider the following code snippet: int test() { int mat[7][7][7]; int i,j,k,sum=0; for(i=0;i<7;i++){ for(j=0;j<7;j++){ for(k=0;k<7;k++){ sum+=mat[i][j][k]^mat[i][j][k^1]; } } } return

Hi, I am using various LLVM optimization passes and I noticed a strange behaviour in Mem2Reg Optimization. These pass is used for SSA construction and basically removed alloca of the corresponding pointers are just used in load/stores. I tried the following .ll file *define i32 @test(i32 %y,i32 %z) { entry: %X = alloca i32 ; type of %X is i32*. %X.0 = add i32 %y ,%z

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 using LLVM 2.7 right now, and I found "opt -std-compile-opts" has missed some opportunities for optimization: define void @spa.main() readonly { entry: %tmp = load i32* @dst-ip ; <i32> [#uses=3] %tmp1 = and i32 %tmp, -16777216 ; <i32> [#uses=1] %tmp2 = icmp eq i32 %tmp1, 167772160 ; <i1> [#uses=2]

I have the following simplified llvm ir, which basically returns value based on the first value of a constant array. ---- ; ModuleID = 'simple_ir3.txt' @f.b = constant [1 x i32] [i32 1], align 4 ; constant array with value 1 at the first element define void @f(i32* nocapture %l0) { entry: %fc_ = alloca [1 x i32] %f.b.v = load [1 x i32]* @f.b store [1 x i32] %f.b.v, [1 x

David Peixotto <dmp <at> rice.edu> writes: > I am seeing the wf loop get optimized just fine with llvm 2.8 (and almost as good with head). I rechecked this and am I actually seeing the same results as you. I think I must have made a stupid mistake in my tests before - sorry for the noise. However, I found that we have a phase ordering problem which is preventing us getting as much

Hello, I've come across another example: I'm compiling with clang -S -emit-llvm -std=gnu99 -O3 clang version 2.9 (trunk 118238) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix I take the code: int loops(int x) { int ret = 0; for(int i = 0; i < x; i++) { for(int j = 0; j < x; j++) { ret += 1; } } return ret; } and the

I came in to an email this morning that said basically the same thing for the reduced example we were looking at. However, the original IR it came from (before hand reduction) had the data layout set correctly, so there's probably still *something* going on. It's just not what I thought at first. :) Philip On 09/10/2014 02:26 AM, Roel Jordans wrote: > Looking at the -debug

Hello there, I'm writing a transformation pass for LLVM, and I hoped to use dce to clean up the resulting code after my pass. I just have some questions about LLVM's dce implementation. Well, my transformation is a function pass, and, after the changes are made, some instructions are not needed anymore. In order to easily get rid of those instructions, I'm setting all their uses to

Hi Cristianno, On 01/06/13 01:49, Cristianno Martins wrote: > Hello there, > > I'm writing a transformation pass for LLVM, and I hoped to use dce to clean up > the resulting code after my pass. I just have some questions about LLVM's dce > implementation. > > Well, my transformation is a function pass, and, after the changes are made, > some instructions are not

Hi, all I'd like to write a code that can build different codes based on LLVM version. Like code snippets in the below. #ifdef __LLVM_29__ PHINode *PN = Builder.CreatePHI (Type::getDoubleTy(getGlobalContext()), 2, "iftmp"); #elif __LLVM_28__ PHINode *PN = Builder.CreatePHI (Type::getDoubleTy(getGlobalContext()), "iftmp"); #else assert ("wrong

Hello, I'm doing some Def/Use analysis, and I'm hung up on one tricky spot. The BB in question is attached. Ignore the red. The issue is that '%13 = load...' instruction does not show up as a Use for the '%scevgep25' definition, and I feel like it should. Instead, it shows up as a Use for '%iftmp.55.0 = select...', though Operand(0) for this '%13 =

Hi, I have been trying to move some instructions between basic blocks , After looking at the API , I found llvm::Instruction::clone() but there is no result value for this. For example- source Basic block : continuation: ; preds = %else, %then %iftmp = phi i32 [ 5, %then ], [ 9, %else ] store i32 %iftmp, i32* %datasize ; 3 instructions below