similar to: [LLVMdev] Inserting Instructions After Instructions

> Given a pointer to an instruction, what is the easiest way to insert one > or more new instructions after that instructions? We used to find the > next instruction using Instruction::getNext(), but this method seems to > have been made private now. LLVM Builder is the easiest way to create/insert instructions. Or you turn the instruction pointer to an iterator and advance:

Hi, Op 15-mei-07, om 10:23 heeft Tanya M. Lattner het volgende geschreven: 1) Download llvm-gcc4 binary and llvm. Compile and run make check. I did a debug build on OSX 10.4.9 and everything went fine. Results of "make check" (see ppc.log): === Summary === # of expected passes 1630 # of unexpected failures 21 # of expected failures 2

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: >> Anyone have thoughts or feedback? :) > > Nice job. The only bit that is not immediately clear is the 'Proto' > variable, but is clear when looking through the code at the end of the page. Where in the tutorial? What would you suggest that I say? > Could do with a link to the LLVMBuilder class reference material. I added a link

On Mar 25, 2010, at 5:23 PM, me22 wrote: > Given that LLVM is already managing the memory and presumably will do > so for the life of your graph processing, could you just use a > boost::directed_graph<llvm::BasicBlock*> instead? Yeah, that was one of the first things I tried: for (Function::iterator i = function.begin(), e = function.end(); i != e; ++i) { BasicBlock

Very nice. Here's a couple comments on the first 6 chapters: http://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/LangImpl1.html "We handle comments by skipping to the end of the line and then returning the next comment." Shouldn't this say "returning the next comment"? http://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/LangImpl2.html I was a bit confused at first because the AST node classes are called ASTs.

I am trying to compile llvm gcc 4.0 from svn today and I'm getting the error below. It looks like the file LLVMBuilder.h. I looked in past versions of LLVM and that file exists; however, it not longer seams to exist. Has it purposely been removed? ------------------------------------ llvm_optimized/include ../../llvm-gcc-4.0/gcc/llvm-backend.cpp -o llvm-backend.o In file included from

> I am trying to compile llvm gcc 4.0 from svn today and I'm getting the > error below. It looks like the file LLVMBuilder.h. I looked in past > versions of LLVM and that file exists; however, it not longer seams to > exist. Has it purposely been removed? llvm-gcc 4.0 is no longer supported (as of 2.2): http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-February/012416.html To

On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 05:24:12PM +1000, Emil Mikulic wrote: > http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~emil/llvm2.1-check-debug.txt Here's an ARM test that cores: $ llvm-as < /home/emil/ll/llvm-2.1/test/CodeGen/ARM/2007-01-19-InfiniteLoop.ll | llc -march=arm -mattr=+v6,+vfp2 Segmentation fault (core dumped) $ gdb `which llc` llc.core [...] (gdb) where #0 0x0853d606 in

On Sun, 27 May 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: >> I just checked in a new LLVMBuilder class into llvm/Support/LLVMBuilder.h, > It does not seem to be on the LLVM cvsweb, is that still showing 1.9 or 2.0 > and not cvs ? It is there: http://llvm.org/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi/llvm/include/llvm/Support/LLVMBuilder.h?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/

> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: >>> I just checked in a new LLVMBuilder class into >>> llvm/Support/LLVMBuilder.h, >> It does not seem to be on the LLVM cvsweb, is that still showing 1.9 or >> 2.0 >> and not cvs ? > > It is there: >

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. The basic block ("I" is pointing to the second instruction) in test.ll: bb: ; preds = %bb1 %1 = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* noalias

Hi, I have been trying to randomize blocks in a program and modified "BasicBlockPlacement.cpp" for the purpose but getting segmentation fault.I am not able to determine the problem.Can anyone please decrypt these error messages or suggest what might be the possible cause of failure? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> On Slackware 10.2 (GCC 3.3.6), I got an error during a debug build with the > header files using uintptr_t (not recognised as a type). Putting "#include > <stdint.h>" in include/llvm/BasicBlock.h (llvm) and in > "include/llvm/ValueSymbolTable.h" (frontend) resolved this. Ok. This is now fixed on the release branch. Thanks! > Also, I got linking

I'm looking for an example of how to insert a new function into a module. I have a module pass that needs to create some new functions. Tia. Reed

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote: > I have been trying to randomize blocks in a program and modified > "BasicBlockPlacement.cpp" for the purpose but getting segmentation > fault.I am not able to determine the problem.Can anyone please decrypt > these error messages or suggest what might be the possible cause of > failure? I'd be happy to fix this, but I need

Hi. I need to write a function pass that insert nop instruction in function. Examples of these instructions are: %nop = add i1 0, 0 or %nop = alloca i1, i1 0. This link couldn't help me: http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#creating-and-inserting-new-instructions I need a clear example about inserting new instruction. Anyone can help me? Thanks. -------------- next part --------------

I get the following error when I try to run arm lli on QEMU: lli: llvm-arm/src/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/ilist.h:197: typename bidirectional_iterator<NodeTy, int>::reference llvm::ilist_iterator<NodeTy>::operator*() const [with NodeTy = llvm::RecyclerStruct]: Assertion `Traits::getNext(NodePtr) != 0 && "Dereferencing end()!"' failed. 0 lli 0x006abbfc Stack dump: 0.

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

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? >

Hello, Consider this : > setClass("track", representation(x="numeric", y="numeric")) [1] "track" > o <- new( "track", x = 1, y = 2 ) > for( i in o ){ + cat( "hello\n") + } Error: invalid type/length (S4/1) in vector allocation This happens at those lines of do_for: n = LENGTH(val); PROTECT_WITH_INDEX(v =