similar to: [LLVMdev] Iterating over all uses of a Function

Hi Mikhail, Can you please attach a simple .bc file that is subject to this problem? Anthony On Apr 21, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi, > > I try to iterate over all uses of a Function with the following > code (simplified): > > for (Value::use_iterator UI = F->use_begin(), UE = F->use_end(); > UI != UE; ++UI) { > >

On Apr 21, 2009, at 4:33 AM, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi, > > I try to iterate over all uses of a Function with the following > code (simplified): This should work. Perhaps you have a memory stomper problem? -Chris > > > for (Value::use_iterator UI = F->use_begin(), UE = F->use_end(); > UI != UE; ++UI) { > > if (CallInst* I =

In LiveIntervals::processImplicitDefs() we have this: for (MachineRegisterInfo::use_iterator UI = mri_->use_begin(Reg), UE = mri_->use_end(); UI != UE; ) { MachineOperand &RMO = UI.getOperand(); MachineInstr *RMI = &*UI; ++UI; MachineBasicBlock *RMBB = RMI->getParent(); if (RMBB == MBB) continue; const

Hi, How can i know, if a value have uses outside of the current basic block (liveout), without iterating through all the basic block ? Thanks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090530/71681bc2/attachment.html>

Thank you. Is it possible to determine the liveout of the operands (see example bellow) ? %5 = add i32 %4, %3 For '%5': i can simply use " i->isUsedOutsideOfBlock() " For '%3' and '%4' : this is the question ... >From your answer, is it possible to determine *which* value is liveout ( in binary instruction)? On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 2:57 AM,

On May 29, 2009, at 11:37 PM, Rotem Varon wrote: > How can i know, if a value have uses outside of the current basic > block (liveout), without iterating through all the basic block ? If the value is created within the basic block in question, and the block doesn't loop to itself, then you can just iterate through the uses and note if the use is an instruction in a different

On Friday 26 February 2010 19:09:01 Dan Gohman wrote: > I've now looked at your latest patch. In summary, it does expose a > subtle problem. I haven't seen anything that here would lead to > observable misbehavior yet though. Well, I'm definitely observing misbehavior. I know it has something to do with local changes here but I haven't isolated it yet. >

I believe Dan has added a pass to compute livein / liveout values. Evan Sent from my iPhone On May 30, 2009, at 5:03 AM, Rotem Varon <varonrotem at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you. > > Is it possible to determine the liveout of the operands (see example > bellow) ? > > %5 = add i32 %4, %3 > > For '%5': i can simply use "

On Jul 17, 2009, at 7:57 AM, David Greene wrote: > In LiveIntervals::processImplicitDefs() we have this: > > for (MachineRegisterInfo::use_iterator UI = mri_->use_begin(Reg), > UE = mri_->use_end(); UI != UE; ) { > MachineOperand &RMO = UI.getOperand(); > MachineInstr *RMI = &*UI; > ++UI; > MachineBasicBlock *RMBB

The pass you're referring to is in include/llvm/Analysis/LiveValues.h and lib/Analysis/LiveValues.cpp. It computes conservative approximations for specific liveness queries, rather than full livein/liveout information. It's intended to be used as a heuristic. Dan On May 30, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Evan Cheng wrote: > I believe Dan has added a pass to compute livein / liveout values. >

Say I want to find all LLVM Value*-es that a live on exit from a basic block. What's the best way? - The 'LiveRange', 'LiveVariables' and 'LiveIntervals' classes seem to be tied to register allocation. - The ./lib/Target/SparcV9/LiveVar/FunctionLiveVarInfo.h file seem to provide what I need, but it's no a public header. - Volodya

I think I understood the problem you're trying to solve. I didn't, however, understand the problems you are having (maybe you're not running mem2reg?). I do have a little piece of code that I think does (more or less) what you want. Take a look at it, try understanding it, and see if it helps you out. You might have to change it a bit since you're replacing uses after an

Hello all; So here is my goal: *** If there is a Call instruction to myFunction(int * val), I need to identify all the instructions that uses val in the IR and replace the uses with a newly created pointer. I will also be changing the argument of myFunction to the new pointer. int * val = malloc/calloc; ... myFunction(val); .... *val = 45; becomes== int * val = malloc/calloc; int * val1 =

In the following IR module: – define i8 @foo() #0 { entry: %call0 = call i8 @bar() ret i8 %call0 } declare i8 @bar() #1 – @bar() gets marked as its own user in top-of-tree LLVM. I patched the Verifier to check it (but didn’t commit the patch): – Index: lib/IR/Verifier.cpp =================================================================== --- lib/IR/Verifier.cpp (revision 203468) +++

Hello everyone ! In my LLVM pass, there is `Intruction* I1`. All the used "I1"s are ICMP instructions. *I1->getOperand(0) returns a `Value*` type. From errs()<<"\n"<<*I1->getOperand(0)<<"\n"; //printed : %3 = load i32* %c, align 4 Printed as expected. But I want to use %c. Do you know how I can get %c ? I need to use the value %c in

The current BasicCallGraph will miss call sites like this: %tmp86 = call i8* (...)* bitcast (i8* ()* @find_ispell to i8* (...)*)( ) ; <i8*> [#uses=1] Here the direct user of @find_ispell is a ConstantExpr. I added several lines of code to address this case. Below is the output of command: svn diff lib/Analysis/IPA/CallGraph.cpp Attached is LLVM asm files with such function calls.

Thanks for the reply. For the source code: int main() { int a = 0; int *p; p = &a; call_arnamoy(p); int *p1; p1 = p; return 1; } The bit code: %retval = alloca i32, align 4 %a = alloca i32, align 4 %p = alloca i32*, align 8 %p1 = alloca i32*, align 8 store i32 0, i32* %retval store i32 0, i32* %a, align 4 store i32* %a, i32** %p, align 8 %0 = load i32** %p, align 8 %call = call i32

Forgot cc, the entire group. How can deterministically iterate over the uses of a variable. i.e. the uses should be any particular order that doesn't change from execution to execution of the opt tool. To make myself more clearer, here is a snippet of code that has Values reordered each time I analyze a particular piece of code(which doesn't change) with the LLVM opt tool and my LLVM

Chris, this is a patch against top-of-tree. Maybe I wrote something wrong in the patch? $ svn info … Last Changed Author: chapuni Last Changed Rev: 203523 Last Changed Date: 2014-03-10 17:34:38 -0700 (Mon, 10 Mar 2014) $ svn diff Index: lib/IR/Verifier.cpp =================================================================== --- lib/IR/Verifier.cpp (revision 203523) +++ lib/IR/Verifier.cpp

Hi, I'm having a problem with the use iterator. Each "use" that I see, when using the use_iterator, is the same as the "def". Meaning, in the code below the pDef is always equal to pUse pointer for every instruction in all basic blocks (except terminators). for (auto i = inst_begin(f), ie = inst_end(f); i != ie; ++i) Instruction* pDef =