similar to: [LLVMdev] globals, modules and badref.

Hi Chuck, > std::vector<Instruction *>::iterator p; > Instruction * pi = PREVIOUS_POSITION; > BasicBlock * pb = PREVIOUS_POSITION->getParent(); > > for(p = coll.begin(); p != coll.end(); ++p){ > Instruction * CurI = * p; > Instruction * CloneI = CurI->clone(); clone doesn't know have any magical way of knowing that it should update the instruction's

I collected a sequence of LLVM instructions, want to make a copy of each and insert them into a PREVIOUS location inside the same function (all globals and locals are properly declared before the PREVIOUS location). Here is the list of instructions I want to duplicate and insert: 0 %90 = load i32* @strstart, align 4 1 %91 = add i32 %90, 2 2 %88 = load i32* @ins_h, align 4 3 %92 =

edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > I'm having trouble figuring out what the error "Instruction does not > dominate all uses!" means. I'm trying to construct a call to a function > with two parameters. The printed IR, with error, looks like this: > > define i32 @add(i32, i32) { > EntryBlock: > %2 = add i32 %0, %1 > ret i32 %2 > } > > define i32

I'm having trouble figuring out what the error "Instruction does not dominate all uses!" means. I'm trying to construct a call to a function with two parameters. The printed IR, with error, looks like this: define i32 @add(i32, i32) { EntryBlock: %2 = add i32 %0, %1 ret i32 %2 } define i32 @eval_expr() { EntryBlock: ret i32 <badref> } Instruction does not dominate

Okay, I've think I understand now. By using a "Value" object (like a function call) in another instruction does nothing more than use a reference to that value. It is still my responsibility to ensure that value/reference is actually created prior to its use in the block. On 02/11/12 12:16, Nick Lewycky wrote: > edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: >> I'm having trouble figuring

Hi edA-qa mort-ora-y, On 02/11/12 10:20, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > I'm having trouble figuring out what the error "Instruction does not > dominate all uses!" means. I'm trying to construct a call to a function > with two parameters. The printed IR, with error, looks like this: > > define i32 @add(i32, i32) { > EntryBlock: > %2 = add i32 %0, %1 >

Hi During a pass, the XCore target lowers thread local global variables by turning them into global variable arrays indexed by the (max 8) thread ID. (see XCoreLowerThreadLocal.cpp) This works fine for instructions e.g. GetElementPtrInst But can't be done for constants e.g. GetElementPtrConstantExpr Thus I would like to replace GetElementPtrConstantExpr with GetElementPtrInst when it is

Thanks for the quick response. I wrote some code to search “llvm.dbg.cu” for the function (right before the failed assertion): if (TheCU == nullptr) { errs() << "compile unit: " << TheCU << "\n scopeNode(" << FnScope->getScopeNode() << ") => " << *FnScope->getScopeNode() << "\n"; auto fn =

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Brandon Holt <bholt at cs.washington.edu> wrote: > Thanks for the quick response. > > I wrote some code to search “llvm.dbg.cu” for the function (right before the > failed assertion): > > if (TheCU == nullptr) { > errs() << "compile unit: " << TheCU << "\n scopeNode(" << >

In your transform I'd take a look at things like the individual basic blocks you're replacing and the functions you're replacing and making sure that the various lexical blocks are being changed at the same time... -eric On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:12 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Brandon Holt <bholt at

How do I find and update the lexical blocks? Is, for example, “CloneFunction” doing this in a way I can copy? I tried finding the subprogram node in “llvm.dbg.cu” and updating the function: DISubprogram s(*subprog_iter); if (s.getFunction() == F) { s.replaceFunction(NF); } But this didn’t seem to have any effect. Do I need to do something similar with every basic block or something? On Dec

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Brandon Holt <bholt at cs.washington.edu> wrote: > In a pass I’m working on, I’ve done some manipulation of several functions, replacing them with new copies with different types, etc. > > The LLVM IR passes the verifier, but when I have debug symbols enabled (“-g”), I get the following error when Clang generates the Dwarf info (using a very recent

In a pass I’m working on, I’ve done some manipulation of several functions, replacing them with new copies with different types, etc. The LLVM IR passes the verifier, but when I have debug symbols enabled (“-g”), I get the following error when Clang generates the Dwarf info (using a very recent build of LLVM/Clang from Git mirror): > Assertion failed: (TheCU && "Unable to find

Hi David, I'm seeing an assertion failure when passing this node !{i32 786454, metadata <badref>, metadata <badref>, metadata !"fn_t", i32 5, i64 0, i64 0, i64 0, i32 0, metadata <badref>} ; [ DW_TAG_typedef ] [fn_t] [line 5, size 0, align 0, offset 0] [from ] as the function type parameter to DIBuilder::createFunction, due to this check in DebugInfo.cpp:

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi David, I'm seeing an assertion failure when passing this node > > !{i32 786454, metadata <badref>, metadata <badref>, metadata !"fn_t", i32 > 5, i64 0, i64 0, i64 0, i32 0, metadata <badref>} ; [ DW_TAG_typedef ] > [fn_t] [line 5, size 0, align 0, offset 0] [from ]

While it is great that LLVM has an IR Verifier, its a little troublesome to use because it separates the point of detection from the source of the problem. That is, the verifier gets run on a module or function after its been built. By that point, the compiler's state has moved past the point at which the error was placed into the module or function. Trying to track down the source of the

<div>Need help about Alias Analysis.</div><div>I try to detect use-after-free debug in source code. And my analysis is based on LLVM IR.</div><div>I use the following code as a small example. I want to get the result p&&q are alias.</div><div>//uaf.cpp</div><div><div>#include<iostream></div><div>using namespace

Hi Eric, On 10/04/13 00:20, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> Hi David, I'm seeing an assertion failure when passing this node >> >> !{i32 786454, metadata <badref>, metadata <badref>, metadata !"fn_t", i32 >> 5, i64 0, i64 0, i64 0, i32 0, metadata <badref>} ;

Ok, now it's arising another problem. IR code that I obtain is the following: i8* bitcast ([5 x i8] c"hello\00" to i8*) generated from instructions: ConstantExpr::getBitCast (ConstantDataArray::getString (getGlobalContext (), "hello"), PointerType::get (Type::getInt8Ty (getGlobalContext ()), 0)) but the LLC tool says: invalid cast opcode for cast from '[5 x i8]'

llvm is giving me some assertion errors when trying to replace an instruction, and I'm not quite sure of what to do. I have the following snippet of code: switch((*I)->getOpcode()) { case Instruction::Malloc: { AllocaInst *AI; AI = new AllocaInst(cast<AllocationInst>(*I)->getAllocatedType(), cast<AllocationInst>(*I)->getArraySize());