similar to: [LLVMdev] metadata syntax

Hi Nick, > I'm looking for input into the syntax for future metadata work. The plan > is to make MDNodes hold a list of WeakVHs which will allow us to track > metadata associated with values even through calls to > ReplaceAllUsesWith. It also means that you can refer to other Values in > the program, including instructions in another Function. > > That's where

Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Nick, > >> I'm looking for input into the syntax for future metadata work. The plan >> is to make MDNodes hold a list of WeakVHs which will allow us to track >> metadata associated with values even through calls to >> ReplaceAllUsesWith. It also means that you can refer to other Values in >> the program, including instructions

Hi Nick, > It'd be nice to say "this StoreInst doesn't overlap that StoreInst" in a > metadata. Or perhaps "here's the likely values for this SwitchInst". well... ok, if you must :) > I have only weak ideas for how interprocedural metadata could be used, > but it's clear that an MDNode made out of WeakVH's could hold one, which > is why

I have a loop fully unrolled and got the following store instruction. store i32 %add.3, i32* getelementptr inbounds ([20 x [20 x i32]]* @c, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0), align 4 I want to know exactly which element of the array that is going to be stored, which help me to transform the high level language to hardware. Take the instruction above as an example, I know the data is stored into c[0][0]. It

It is ModulePass with AnalysisUsage of CallGraph Yours sincerely, Kadysev Mikhail 22.04.2012, в 5:20, Nick Lewycky написал(а): > Михаил wrote: >> Thanks, but I replaceAllUsesWith() - works well, but I still get bug in >> eraseFromParent(): >> >> While deleting: i32 (%class.B*, i32)* %_ZN1B1xEi >> An asserting value handle still pointed to this value! >>

TL;DR: If you use metadata (especially if it's out-of-tree), check the numbered list of lost functionality below to see whether I'm trying to break your compiler permanently. In response to my recent commits (e.g., [1]) that changed API from `MDNode` to `Value`, Eric had a really interesting idea [2] -- split metadata entirely from the `Value` hierarchy, and drop general support for

Hi Cheng, On 18/01/13 03:00, Cheng Liu wrote: > I have a loop fully unrolled and got the following store instruction. > > store i32 %add.3, i32* getelementptr inbounds ([20 x [20 x i32]]* @c, i32 0, > i32 0, i32 0), align 4 > > I want to know exactly which element of the array that is going to be > stored, which help me to transform the high level language to hardware. Take

Михаил wrote: > It is ModulePass with AnalysisUsage of CallGraph Ah, then you'll need to update the CallGraph first. Use "CG.removeFunctionFromModule(F);" before deleting it. Nick > Yours sincerely, > Kadysev Mikhail > > 22.04.2012, в 5:20, Nick Lewycky написал(а): > >> Михаил wrote: >>> Thanks, but I replaceAllUsesWith() - works well, but I still

Hello everybody, my problem is, that I want to get an array of pointers to all local variables in a function. This array will be used for transfering these Variables to another execution engine. I've code which generates this array, and a pointer to the target field of the array. name = variables.fname + "_pointerArray"; Instruction* pointerArray = new

Hello, I wonder if someone would know what is going on below. All of a sudden I’m getting this assertion thrown: Assertion failed: (New->getType() == getType() && "replaceAllUses of value with new value of different type!"), function replaceAllUsesWith, file /Users/meister/Development/externals-clasp/llvm36/lib/IR/Value.cpp, line 345. It’s happening when

I looked at an earlier version. NamedMDNodes were linked after global values. Current trunk version links NamedMDNodes before that, though the comment says otherwise: "We do this after linking GlobalValues so that MDNodes that reference GlobalValues are properly remapped". see ModuleLinker::run in lib/Linker/LinkModules.cpp. If I move the call to linkNamedMDNodes in ModuleLinker::run

I forgot to mention this in my initial email. The build of LLVM that I was using was commit a0d5d7aed8e177cea381b3d054d80c212ece9f2c The date on the commit is: Date: Fri Sep 26 12:34:06 2014 Also: Today I grabbed the ToT llvm/clang/clang-extra-tools and I’m working on getting my code to be compatible with it. I can switch back and forth between the current ToT llvm and the old one. Thanks,

On Aug 4, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Xi Wang wrote: > I looked at an earlier version. NamedMDNodes were linked after global > values. Current trunk version links NamedMDNodes before that, though > the comment says otherwise: "We do this after linking GlobalValues so > that MDNodes that reference GlobalValues are properly remapped". see > ModuleLinker::run in

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Devang Patel <devang.patel at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> Devang's work on debug info prompted this, thoughts welcome: >> http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/ExtensibleMetadata.txt > > Here is partial initial implementation. > Thoughts ? setHasMetadata

Hello, I have an optimisation issue in an llvm IR pass - the issue being that unnecessary instructions are generated in the final assembly (with -O3). I want to create the following assembly snippet: mov dl,BYTE PTR [rsi+rdi*1] add dl,0x1 adc dl,0x0 mov BYTE PTR [rsi+rdi*1],dl however what is created is (variant #1): mov dl,BYTE PTR [rsi+rdx*1] add dl,0x1 cmp

Hi Craig, On 03.07.19 17:33, Craig Topper wrote: > Don't the CreateICmp calls return a Value* with an i1 type? But then > they are added to an i8 type? Not sure that works.  I had that initially: auto cf = IRB.CreateICmpULT(Incr, ConstantInt::get(Int8Ty, 1)); auto carry = IRB.CreateZExt(cf, Int8Ty); Incr = IRB.CreateAdd(Incr, carry); it makes no difference to the generated assembly

The intent of this proposal is to speedup compilation of "-flto -g" for c++ programs. This is based on discussions with Adrian, David and Eric. --------------------------- Problem: A single class can be used in multiple source files and the DI (Debug Info) class is included in multiple bc files. The duplication of class definitions causes blow-up in # of MDNodes, # of DIEs, leading to

I have a quick question about embedded metadata. I've lost track of exactly what we want to support. What about making MDNodes that refer to Instructions? Is that desired any more, or is that obsolete? I had a patch to do this locally and I either want to fix it up and commit it or discard it. The relevant section of my locally modified test/Feature/embeddedmetadata.ll reads: define

[AMD Official Use Only - Internal Distribution Only] Hi , There seems to be some issue with attributor, exactly in File Attributor.cpp, Function Attributor::rewriteFunctionSignatures(), Line No: 1600 (approrimate). The llvm source code at above address is as follows: // Eliminate the instructions *after* we visited all of them. for (auto &CallSitePair : CallSitePairs) {

Thanks, but I replaceAllUsesWith() - works well, but I still get bug in eraseFromParent(): While deleting: i32 (%class.B*, i32)* %_ZN1B1xEi An asserting value handle still pointed to this value! UNREACHABLE executed at /Users/neonomaly/LLVM/LLVM/lib/VMCore/Value.cpp:561! Yours sincerely, Kadysev Mikhail 21.04.2012, в 23:45, Nick Lewycky написал(а): > Михаил wrote: >> How correctly