similar to: [LLVMdev] Eliminate Store-Load pair even the LoadInst is volatile

Hi, Thanks, John, I just forgot the multi-thread issue. I'll write my own pass to handle this as for my project, it is just single-thread case. Sheng. Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 09:30:45 -0500 > From: John Criswell <criswell at cs.uiuc.edu> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Eliminate Store-Load pair even the LoadInst is > volatile > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List

Hi, I would like to get the '5'. I would like to know where the loaded value is stored. I don't know which method I should use of the LoadInst class. Hope this clarifies Thanks On Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 20:37 Doerfert, Johannes Rudolf <jdoerfert at anl.gov wrote: > The LoadInst is %5. I'm not sure what you mean by reference though. > > On 12/12, Alberto Barbaro via

I'm just diving into LLVM. What does it mean when LoadInst::getAlignment() returns 0? Unknown alignment, use default alignment of the type for the load, something else? In particular, clang appears to set to 0 the alignment of the load instruction that results from accessing the lvalue returned by a call. Is this the intended behavior? For example: const double &foo(void *p); double

The compilation error is : `error: ‘LD100’ was not declared in this scope.` On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Alexandru Ionut Diaconescu < alexandruionutdiaconescu at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Can you please tell me if it is possible in LLVM to cast a `Value*` to an > `Instruction*/LoadInst*` if for example `isa<LoadInst>(MyValue)` is true? > In my

Alexandru Ionut Diaconescu wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Can you please tell me if it is possible in LLVM to cast a `Value*` to > an `Instruction*/LoadInst*` if for example `isa<LoadInst>(MyValue)` is > true? http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#the-isa-cast-and-dyn-cast-templates In my particular piece of code: > > Value* V1 =

Hi Alexandru, > The compilation error is : `error: ‘LD100’ was not declared in this scope.` > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Alexandru Ionut Diaconescu < > alexandruionutdiaconescu at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> Can you please tell me if it is possible in LLVM to cast a `Value*` to an >> `Instruction*/LoadInst*` if for example

I'm make silly error (swap arguments in llvm::StroreInst constructor call: llvm::Value* var = genExpr(bb,*varExpr,false); llvm::Value* val = genExpr(bb,*valExpr,true ); llvm::StoreInst* lStore = new llvm::StoreInst(var,val,bb); instead assert(var && var->getType()->getTypeID()==llvm::Type::PointerTyID && "var side isn't pointer type"); llvm::StoreInst*

Thanks Sean. It clarified my query. Do you have an answer to my other question (in a different mail-chain) listed below Is there a simple way to check if a given instruction operand (represented by Value *) is a virtual register or otherwise? Context: I am creating a ModulePass for pointer Analysis. BR/Nizam From: "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com> To: nizam

Hi, I am trying to figure out the best way to add some extra metadata to the store and load llvm-ir instructions: The metadata content is a 'Value*' expression representing a side channel, containing dependency information that is used to help the Scoped Alias Analysis. Optimizations that don't know about this side channel can safely drop it, where the only effect would be on the

Folks, I have a LLVM instruction like the following %0 = load i32** %pp, align 8 I have a LoadInst &inst handle to this instruction. In addition, i could access the pointer being loaded from using the inst.getPointerOperand... However, is there a way to access the handle to the value being loaded? Essentially, i wanted to access the %0 in the statement listed. The end goal is

Thanks Joshua and Michael, Just to to clarify, I'm experimenting with the Interpreter class and observing the instructions that are executed by it. Just for becoming more confident with LLVM in general I'd like for each instruction to access to the various parts of it. In this instance I would like to access to the %Name that is shown in the textual representation. When I call

Hi Tim, Assume a store instruction. Store has 2 Operands. I can use the store->getOperand(0) and store->getOperand(1) methods to access these operands in form of Value *. Very likely that the operands are stack variables or formal variables or global variables. It is also possible that these operands are LLVM virtual-registers. Is there a way to determine if a given operand is a

Hi all, I have %5 = load i32, i32* %3, align 4 LoadInst and I would like to get reference to the destination ( in this case %5 ). How can I do that? Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20181212/1d0bd00c/attachment.html>

Hello everyone, Can you please tell me if it is possible in LLVM to cast a `Value*` to an `Instruction*/LoadInst*` if for example `isa<LoadInst>(MyValue)` is true? In my particular piece of code: Value* V1 = icmpInstrArray[i]->getOperand(0); Value* V2 = icmpInstrArray[i]->getOperand(1); if (isa<LoadInst>(V1) || isa<LoadInst>(V2)){ ...

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 02:23:01PM +0100, Jonas Maebe via llvm-dev wrote: > Recap: we use setjmp/longjmp for our exception handling on all platforms in > our regular (non-LLVM) code generators. I'd like to use the same > infrastructure with the LLVM code generator for code interoperability > purposes (the LLVM SjLj personality is not binary-compatible with our > existing

Jonas Maebe via llvm-dev wrote: > Then, I tried the following: > a) if the longjmp for the try-block is taken (i.e., the setjmp right > before the try-block returns a non-zero value), jump to the landingpad BBL. > > -> Problem: LLVM does not allow regular jump edges to landingpad BBLs > > b) since the landingpad is empty anyway and falls through into the next > BBL

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at codeaurora.org > wrote: > A customer has reported a performance problem, which I have eventually > tracked down to the following situation: > > Consider this program: > > int foo(int *p, volatile int *q, int n) { > int i, s = 0; > for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) > s += *p + *q; > return s;

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Jonas Maebe <jonas-devlists at watlock.be> wrote: > > Actually, there's another —even more fundamental— problem: the longjmp > will always restore the non-volatile registers to the contents they had > at the start of the try-block, which is not what LLVM expects when > entering an SEH-based landing pad. > The SjLjEHPrepare pass tries

On 30/09/16 20:10, Reid Kleckner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:42 AM, Jonas Maebe <jonas-devlists at watlock.be > <mailto:jonas-devlists at watlock.be>> wrote: > > So, can I use invoke and landingpad without using any of the other > exception handling intrinsics? (in combination with a dummy personality > function) Or will LLVM in all cases insist on

On 01/20/2013 10:56 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > I doubt you needed to add cfe-dev here. Sorry I hadn't seen this, this > seems like an easy and simple deficiency in the IR intrinsic for > memcpy. See below. > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Arnaud de Grandmaison > <arnaud.allarddegrandmaison at parrot.com > <mailto:arnaud.allarddegrandmaison at