similar to: [LLVMdev] PDG (program dependence graph)

Hi, Is there a way to use LLVM to build the visual representation of program dependence graph (PDG) of a routine/program? >From looking at https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/poolalloc/branches/release_14/lib/DSA/PgmDependenceGraph.cpp, it looks like there is an incomplete implementation of PDG in LLVM. However, when I search within LLVM3.0 package, I don't find the .cpp/h code. So, I also

Hi Guys, I saw in the API that DominanceFrontier has been deprecated. Is this for real? I have read the computational issues but shouldn't that be left to the users of llvm? My concern is I am writing a Control Dependence module that uses Dominance-Frontier information. Getting rid of Dominance Frontiers will put me in a tight spot. George -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

George Baah <georgebaah at gmail.com> writes: > Hi Guys, > > I saw in the API that DominanceFrontier has been deprecated. Is this > for real? > I have read the computational issues but shouldn't that be left to the > users of llvm? > My concern is I am writing a Control Dependence module that uses > Dominance-Frontier information. > Getting rid of Dominance

Hi, Is it possible to generate the PDG of a function using LLVM? I did not find much documentation on it online. Thanks. -Apala Postdoctoral Scholar Department of Computer Science, University of Chicago Computation Institute, Argonne National Laboratory http://sites.google.com/site/apalaguha/home/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I found the -postdomfrontier pass in *llvm*.org/docs/Passes.html, but 'opt' does not accept it. I could not find the relevant codes in PostDominance.cpp in SVN trunk, but I found some relevant codes here http://opensource.apple.com/source/clang/clang-137/src/lib/Analysis/PostDominators.cpp. I am wondering why this pass is removed and what should I do if I want the post

Hi, I found that LLVM 3.1 says Dominance frontier is deprecated. Can anyone please tell me, if there is any replacement for Dominance frontier & Postdominance frontier in LLVM? What are the options if we need to use them? Thanks, Swarup. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, In browsing through the LLVM source, I don't currently see an implementation for a control dependence graph builder. Am I overlooking something? It doesn't look like LLVM currently provides a way to build the post-dominance frontier of the reverse CFG, either. Dominators.h mentions forward dominators, but I believe all this is referring to is dominators as opposed to post-dominators,

Hi, > I found the -postdomfrontier pass in *llvm*.org/docs/Passes.html, but > 'opt' does not accept it. I could not find the relevant codes in > PostDominance.cpp in SVN trunk, but I found some relevant codes here > http://opensource.apple.com/source/clang/clang-137/src/lib/Analysis/PostDominators.cpp. > > > I am wondering why this pass is removed and what should I

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Mark Lacey<superoptimizer at gmail.com> wrote: > In browsing through the LLVM source, I don't currently see an implementation > for a control dependence graph builder. Am I overlooking something? No, I don't think there is one. I think an implementation would be welcome if you're willing to contribute one. > It doesn't look like

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > > Try PostDominators.h. > Yes, I seemed to have blanked out there for minute and thought I needed something other than the post-dominance frontier. Mark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Joshua, David much appreciate your quick help! What I am actually doing is statically tracing values. If one of the traced values is part of a condition (e.g. in an if statement) all instructions in the then and else part are also traced. The automatic tracing of instructions however needs to stop when I hit the first instruction after the if statement (same for switch). Dominators seem to be a

Hi all... I am developing a program slicing framework using LLVM. The idea is to remove the computation parts from the program and only keep the parts relevant for the control flow. For example, in the following C loop. for (i=0;i<=VAL;) { printf("In the loop"); a=b+c; b=h+k; i++; printf("%d",i); } after slicing... for (i=0;i<=VAL;) { i++;

On 07/13/2012 04:30 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi, > >> I found the -postdomfrontier pass in *llvm*.org/docs/Passes.html, but >> 'opt' does not accept it. I could not find the relevant codes in >> PostDominance.cpp in SVN trunk, but I found some relevant codes here >> http://opensource.apple.com/source/clang/clang-137/src/lib/Analysis/PostDominators.cpp.

That's because instructions have a location associated with them, not a compile unit. -eric On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:46 PM, George Baah <georgebaah at gmail.com> wrote: > I used DILocation instead of DICompileUnit and it works. Hmmm, interesting. > > George > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:33 AM, George Baah <georgebaah at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Here is

Here is the code. I am running on llvm 3.1 on Lion (Mac 10.7.4) *string getFileDirectory*(*const* Instruction &I){ MDNode *MD = I.getMetadata("dbg"); DICompileUnit compileUnit(MD); return compileUnit.getDirectory().str(); } George On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>wrote: > Without knowing the code that you've written

Hmmm, but it has a getDirectory function. -G On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > That's because instructions have a location associated with them, not > a compile unit. > > -eric > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 12:46 PM, George Baah <georgebaah at gmail.com> wrote: > > I used DILocation instead of DICompileUnit and

You should probably think of the DIFooBar constructors like reinterpret-casts, not "go find the thing I actually want" functions. If you hand DICompileUnit() a node that is not a compile-unit metadata node, it's not going to tell you that you goofed. If you _did_ have a CU metadata node, then DICompileUnit's getDirectory() would work just fine. But you don't. --paulr

I used DILocation instead of DICompileUnit and it works. Hmmm, interesting. George On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:33 AM, George Baah <georgebaah at gmail.com> wrote: > Here is the code. I am running on llvm 3.1 on Lion (Mac 10.7.4) > > *string getFileDirectory*(*const* Instruction &I){ > > MDNode *MD = I.getMetadata("dbg"); > > DICompileUnit

Yeah, It looks like I am doing exactly what's in Dwarf*.cpp files, yet I am getting blanks. George On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:00 AM, George Baah <georgebaah at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > How does one get the directory of the compilation unit in llvm? > > I am using

I mean an llvm Pass that transforms switch statements into if statements. For example, if I have code with switch statements then running the pass will convert all switches to ifs in the bytecode. George On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "George Baah" <georgebaah at gmail.com> > >