similar to: [LLVMdev] replacing instructions

Ralf Karrenberg wrote: > Hello everyone, > > is there any way to replace an instruction inside LLVM that is more > elegant than creating a new one, replacing uses and deleting the old one > if I only want to modify the type? It is generally not a big deal, but > the issue gets really messy if I am in the middle of iterating over uses > and start deleting some of them... >

Hello guys, I wonder how I can change the type of an integer variable. For instance, given the instruction "%3 = add i32 %1, %2" I would like to alter the instruction to "%3 = add i16 %1, %2". Is there any way to do this? Best wishes, Douglas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, Nick, thanks for the reply. I still have a problem: I only need to "clone" an Instruction, changing its type. That is, I would like to keep all characteristics of the old Instruction and create a new one only with a different type. I am trying create a new Instruction thus: %3 = add nsw i32 %1, %2 ; <i16> [#uses=2] //Old Instruction Value* Op0 = I->getOperand(0); Value*

On 21 January 2011 12:56, Douglas do Couto Teixeira < douglasdocouto at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello guys, > > I wonder how I can change the type of an integer variable. For instance, > given the instruction "%3 = add i32 %1, %2" I would like to alter the > instruction to "%3 = add i16 %1, %2". Is there any way to do this? > No. Instead you create a new

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > On 01/24/2011 04:41 AM, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Nick, thanks for the reply. >> I still have a problem: I only need to "clone" an Instruction, changing >> its type. That is, I would like to keep all characteristics of the old >> Instruction

On 01/24/2011 04:41 AM, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: > Hi, > > Nick, thanks for the reply. > I still have a problem: I only need to "clone" an Instruction, changing > its type. That is, I would like to keep all characteristics of the old > Instruction and create a new one only with a different type. Sure, but what about its operands? An "add" instruction

On 1/24/11 12:05 PM, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca > <mailto:nicholas at mxc.ca>> wrote: > > On 01/24/2011 04:41 AM, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: > > Hi, > > Nick, thanks for the reply. > I still have a problem: I only need to "clone" an

Hi, guys, Thanks a lot for your help. As you know, I am trying to implement something to change the types of the instructions. And I chose the trunc's approach because it seems be simple. But I still have some problems and questions. Would be great if you can help me. I have used the results of my range analysis implementation to change the intermediate representation. I am using

Hi Eli, Mon Ping, > In ISO/IEC WG14 n1169 on the C extensions to support embedded > processors, any two address spaces must be disjoint, must be > equivalent, or must be nested. Ah, that standard is a lot clearer on this subject than the DSP-C one I read was. > As Eli indicated, the actual relationship is platform specific depending on > what makes the most sense for

Hi all, > If I read the standard correctly, the properties of these address spaces can > be fully captured by defining the relationship between every pair of address > spaces (disjoint, identical, subset/superset). > > I think it would make sense to make these relationships backend/platform > specific, but for clang and the optimization passes to properly work with > address

In ISO/IEC WG14 n1169 on the C extensions to support embedded processors, any two address spaces must be disjoint, must be equivalent, or must be nested. As Eli indicated, the actual relationship is platform specific depending on what makes the most sense for your hardware and how the program will behave will depend on that relationship. -- Mon Ping On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:25 AM, Eli

Many DI-related bugs are caused by missing Debug Location in an instruction created in a transformation. Most of the time the fix is trivial once you found where the culprit instruction is created (https://reviews.llvm.org/D50263). Currently, when you create a new Instruction, in order to give it DL you have to either use an IRBuilder that is previously set to the correct DL or “manually” create

Hi everyone, I am trying to replace the call of a certain function with a call to another function. It would for example replace the following: %call = tail call noalias i8* @func(i64 10) by %call = tail call noalias i8* @other_func(i64 10) I managed to declare other_func correctly but I am having troubles to understand how I should proceed to do the replacement. I tried to use

Hi all, I am trying to write a pass where i am creating a clone of a function (the only difference being, the new function returns void , instead of any value). I am creating a new Function Type with a void return type (rest being the same as original function), and using this i am creating a new function body. Then, i clone the body of the old function into new function, but when ever i

Hi, For the following code const Type * Int32Type = IntegerType::getInt32Ty(getGlobalContext()); AllocaInst* newInst = new AllocaInst(Int32Type, 0, "flag", Bb); Bb->getInstList().push_back(newInst); It gives me the error " error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'llvm::AllocaInst' AllocaInst* newInst = new

Hi, I'm gonna try to give some feedback, but I have only been working with LLVM for a few days, so don't take what I'm saying without verifying :-) > BasicBlock *ProgSlicer::CloneBasicBlock(const BasicBlock *BB, > DenseMap<const Value*, Value*> &ValueMap, > const char *NameSuffix, Function *F) { > > BasicBlock

Hi, I am working on a project with LLVM. What I need to do is to generate/insert some dummy/dead basic blocls which never have chance to be executed and put some instructions in those dummy/dead basic blocks. So far, the dummy/dead BB insertion is done. I am trying insert instructions in those dummy/dead BB. Actually, I can insert the legal instructions to dummy/dead BB, however, I really want

Hi , I am trying to clone a BasicBlock. I want both to co-exist and I have introduced a conditional branch to the original or the cloned BB. I tried mapping the original instruction and the clone as below : Instruction *NewInst = II->clone(); if (II->hasName()) NewInst->setName(II->getName()); NewBB->getInstList().push_back(NewInst); ValueMap[II] =

It seems the CloneBasicBlock function defined in Transforms/Utils/Cloning.h doesn't change the parent BasicBlock of the contained instructions when it has cloned them -- Is this a bug or a feature? m.

HI, I am creating a pass that will pass loaded value by load instruction to an external function. I don't know how to do it.Please Help.