similar to: [LLVMdev] Forcing order of execution

Hi, Is there a way to modify the string such as char a or char b? Could I use the way like "Replace an instruction with another Value" in Programm Manual? In fact, what I am interested in is string with visible expression, not all string, and I am trying to hide the orignal string by using simple way like XOR.. Is there a way to reorder the basic blocks? Thanks. Qiuyu C Source

When I increased COLS to the point where the loop could no longer be unrolled, the selection dag code generator generated effectively the same code as the default X86 code generator. Lots of redundant imul/movl/addl sequences. It can't clean it up either. Only unrolling all nested loops permits it to be optimized away, regardless of code generator. Jeff Cohen wrote: > I noticed

Chris Lattner wrote: > Check out http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes > > %Size = getelementptr %T* null, int 1 %SizeI = cast %T* %Size to uint How incredibly cunning. :-) Thanks for that. Next stupid question. I've put together a simple coroutine/fibre style threading system on top of the Linux setcontext/getcontext stuff, which surprisingly enough seems to work *almost*

hi, I try to build hello.cpp using both llvmg++ and GNU g++, the generate llvm bytecode's size is about 960K, and the size of binary code generated by g++ is only 13K. Could anyone explain the difference between the two result? BWT: I rebuild the cfrontend in RH linux9.0, but when I build the hello.cpp the llvmG++ reports warnings too, it shows: ----------------------------- [yue at RH9

I have an objective-c file, bar.m, that I try to process in the following way generating the error shown below. Any help would be appreciated. I suspect the error is in the first few lines of output. thanks, Todd > cfrontend-g++ -o bar.bc bar.m > llvm2cpp -o bar.cpp bar.bc > g++ -c bar.o bar.cpp > ld -o bar bar.o -l objc -l LLVMCore -l LLVMSupport -l LLVMSystem > ./bar Global

I noticed that fourinarow is one of the programs in which LLVM is much slower than GCC, so I decided to take a look and see why that is so. The program has many loops that look like this: #define ROWS 6 #define COLS 7 void init_board(char b[COLS][ROWS+1]) { int i,j; for (i=0;i<COLS;i++) for (j=0;j<ROWS;j++) b[i][j]='.';

>Right. This looks like it's just a simple bug in llvm2cpp. >CppWriter.cpp:698 contains: > > if (CA->isString() && CA->getType()->getElementType() == >Type::SByteTy) { > Out << "Constant* " << constName << " = ConstantArray::get(\""; > printEscapedString(CA->getAsString()); > //

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:05:32PM +0300, Vladimir Merzliakov wrote: > >>Is assert(!NewSTy->isAbstract()) must pass after this line? > > > >In this case, yup. > > > I create test program and assert failed in it: > > { \2 *, sbyte * } How do I decode the \2 in this? I am creating types through this interface and I get quite a mess seen below. And this is

hi, I want to know what is exact meaning in the following code. target endian-- %struct..TorRec-- %struct.TorRec-- implementation-- ;<sbyte>[#uses=1/0]-- how to explain them in details? Does anyone give me a guide? thanks yueqiang -------------------------------------------------------------- target endian = little target pointersize = 32 %struct..TorRec = type { int, void ()* }

After looking at this problem longer, I believe that there is something wrong with the disassembler. When I run my transformation and then disassemble the output, I get bytecode that looks like: ----- int %main(int %argc, sbyte** %argv) { entry: alloca int ; <int*>:0 [#uses=3] alloca sbyte** ; <sbyte***>:0 [#uses=3] store int %argc,

Hi, I'm working on a CS326 compiler project, and I'm having some problems using string functions. Some LLVM programs produced are either aborting or giving incorrect results; however, if I disassemble the LLVM bytecode and recompile with GCC, everything works fine. I encountered the following error when running lli with '-force-interpreter' option: "Tried to execute an

On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 08:58, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Tanu Sharma wrote: > > > I have trouble using the llvm tools.Some of the errors are : > > > > $ llvm-dis prog.bc > > $ llvm-dis: Invalid Top Level Block Length! Type:1, Size:456 (Vers=0, Pos=12) > > Can you explain how you generated this bytecode file? It looks corrupted > or

I am writing a transformation that needs to add a call to a function F() at the beginning of main() with the addresses of argc and argv as parameters to F(). However, the bytecode file I'm transforming has not allocated space on the stack for argc and argv. So, I developed my transformation to change main() from: ----- int main(int %argc, sbyte** %argv){ entry: ... // some use of

Hello! I get some odd behaviour using my structs: "myKernelMap" = type {int (sbyte*)*, int ()*} "Kernel" = type {"myKernelMap"*} The second member ( int()* ) is a pointer to the %getchar() function. I want to call getchar using this function: int "callmyKernelgetchar_kernel"("Kernel"* "myKernel") { "PTRMAP" =

I'm trying to figure out the unwind primitive. I've written a program which should: 1. Recursively grow the stack until it reaches a threshold 2. Then unwind and print a message Instead what happens is: 1. Recursively grow the stack until it reaches a threshold 2. Then it dies with: Abort trap Can you point me to an example using uwind that "works" ? Thanks. Here's the

Further to that, I thought an example might be useful. In the following code, n should end up with a value that varies nondeterministically with the scheduling decisions made by the underlying run time system -- my model checker, for example, should in theory be able to enumerate all possible values. Anyway, if you look at the compiler output (see below), the volatile global variable, n, has

Anders Alexandersson wrote: > Hello! > > I get some odd behaviour using my structs: > > "myKernelMap" = type {int (sbyte*)*, int ()*} > "Kernel" = type {"myKernelMap"*} > > The second member ( int()* ) is a pointer to the %getchar() function. > > I want to call getchar using this function: > > int

Ram: Let me explain and hopefully Reid or Chris will correct if I have it wrong. The first 0 is the index into a possible array of sbyte[13] arrays that this pointer points to. I expect GetElementPtr works this way is to keep down the proliferation of arrays of arrays in the type table. So you are pointing at the zeroth, and in this case only, array of sbyte[13]. The next 0 actually

(I have verified that just going through all the Functions in the Module and calling getPointerToFunction for each in turn actually seems to work -- I just wanted to make sure that this is sensible) Sarah

The only thing I can think of is that string.h is being #included and has different signatures for memcpy and strncpy. Possibly "char" is not signed on your machine (very unusual) or some of the parameters are declared as "const". Reid. On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 18:19, Eric Zimmerman wrote: > Chris, > > I'm fine with using JIT, but I'm trying to understand this