similar to: [LLVMdev] Writing instructions to file

Thanks Nick! ok. I ran through the verifier and this is the issue: verifying... Instruction does not dominate all uses! %tmp3 = add i32 %b, %a ; <i32> [#uses=2] store i32 %tmp3, i32* %0, align 4 Broken module found, compilation aborted! add is existing instruction in function. store is the instruction I have added to the function. How do I fix this now :(? Thanks, Bhavani --- On Mon,

Hi, I am trying to extract the name of the variables passed as an Argument to a Function. I am using a runOnFunction Pass. For example in the following IR respresentation, define void @foo(i32 %limit) { entry: -- -- } I should be able to walk the IR and get '%limit' as the external variable passed to the function. Another question, Is it possible to create a basic symbol table (

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]

Hi, I want to clone a given function, and add an argument to it. I then want to add a call to that new function. I have a callInstruction CI, which I want to transform to call this new function, and to take a new argument. The code I added was as follows CI->getCalledFunction()->dump(); Function* DirectF = CloneFunction(CI->getCalledFunction());

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

The following piece of IR is a fixed point for opt -std-compile-opts/-O3: --- target datalayout = "e-p:64:64:64-S128-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:64:64-f16:16:16-f32:32:32-f64:64:64-f128:128:128-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-s0:64:64-f80:128:128-n8:16:32:64" target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" ; Function Attrs: nounwind readonly define i32 @get32Bits(i8*

ok 1 last question for the day... I created a function in C. void writeToFile(char *str) { FILE *f; if((f=fopen("example","a"))==NULL){ printf("could not open file"); } else{ fprintf(f,str); fclose(f);} } used this to create .bc then using llc -march=cpp I got the cpp code to create this function. While instrumenting my code, I place call to this function.

[+Arnold] > On Jun 10, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > [+CC Andy] > >> Can anyone familiar with ScalarRevolution tell me whether this is an >> expected behavior or a bug? > > Assuming you're talking about 2*k, this is a bug. ScalarEvolution > should be able to prove that {0,+,4} is <nsw> and

Hey Duncan, hey everybody else, I just stumbled upon a problem in the latest llvm-gcc trunk which is related to my previous problem with the 64bit ABI and structs: Given the following code: struct float3 { float x, y, z; }; extern "C" void __attribute__((noinline)) test(float3 a, float3* res) { res->y = a.y; } int main(void) { float3 a; float3 res; test(a,

On 2/22/11 1:31 PM, Arushi Aggarwal wrote: > Hi, > > I want to clone a given function, and add an argument to it. I then > want to add a call to that new function. I have a callInstruction CI, > which I want to transform to call this new function, and to take a new > argument. If I understand correctly, you're cloning the function first and then adding a new argument to

ok.. So I am trying out what you have suggested. I have written the below code which basically tries to write the constant 10 to a file. myprint is a function pointer to a function which takes char * parameter and writes it to file. Value *Ten = ConstantInt::get(Type::Int32Ty, 10); const Type *VoidPtrTy = PointerType::getUnqual(Type::Int8Ty); AllocaInst *AI = new AllocaInst(Type::Int32Ty); Value

Ah! I get it now. Thanks a lot ! I changed it to BitCastInst(AI,VoidPtrTy,"",j); And now I am getting the following error :(. I have been stuck with this error before also. I know I am missing out something silly. What is the cause of this error and Please let me know how to fix it. /home/bhavani/llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp:1130: llvm::SDOperand

I thought I'd share a little bit of progress I made this weekend. I've gotten the first interesting test-case (a simple switch) through hyperblock-based DAGISel, and there's a pretty picture too! Each part of the switch is emitted directly into the DAG, rather than being deferred. This is the function: define i32 @foo(i32 %x, i32 %z) nounwind { entry: switch i32 %x,

Hi, I am writing an optimization pass where I need to instrument the code such that I need to store the results of some instructions in file. Using llc -march=cpp option I figured out how to add a function(say writeToFile) which takes char* parameter and writes to file. Now, I need put in a CallInst which calls writeToFile passing the Instruction result as parameter. How do I do this? So, in my

Hello, I have next code: ;begin ; ModuleID = 'sample.lz' @.str1 = internal constant [20 x i8] c"\22hello, cruel world\22" ; <[20 x i8]*> [#uses=1] @.str4 = internal constant [9 x i8] c"\22hello, \22" ; <[9 x i8]*> [#uses=1] @.str7 = internal constant [7 x i8] c"\22heya!\22" ; <[7 x i8]*> [#uses=1]

On Oct 27, 2013 2:16 PM, "David Nadlinger" <code at klickverbot.at> wrote: > > The following piece of IR is a fixed point for opt -std-compile-opts/-O3: > > --- > target datalayout = > "e-p:64:64:64-S128-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:64:64-f16:16:16-f32:32:32-f64:64:64-f128:128:128-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-s0:64:64-f80:128:128-n8:16:32:64"

I am testing vectorization on the following test case: float x[1024], y[1024]; void myloop1() { for (long int k = 0; k < 512; k++) { x[2*k] = x[2*k]+y[k]; } } Vectorization failed due to "unsafe dependent memory operation". I traced the LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp and found the reason is the NoWrapFlag for SCEVAddRecExpr is not set and consequently the

Very nice! Why did you decide on hyperblock instead of SEME region and how are you forming the blocks? Evan On Apr 20, 2008, at 9:59 PM, Christopher Lamb wrote: > I thought I'd share a little bit of progress I made this weekend. > I've gotten the first interesting test-case (a simple switch) > through hyperblock-based DAGISel, and there's a pretty picture too! >

On May 22, 2014, at 3:51 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Louis Gerbarg <lgg at apple.com> wrote: > The problem that the above transform is technically illegal because “When indexing into a (optionally packed) structure, only i32 integer constants are allowed (when using a vector of indices they must all be the same

What? Yet another EH proposal?! This one is different from the others in that I'm planning to start implementing this shortly. But I want your feedback! I've all ready gotten a lot of feedback from Chris, John, Jim, Eric, and many others. Now is your turn! Please read this proposal and send me your comments, suggestions, and concerns. -bw