similar to: [LLVMdev] Error in Hello World Pass

Hi, I am writing an LLVM Pass and I would like to know how would I do the following: 1. I have a function foo, and I need to get all the call points calling this function in each Function of the Module. The only way I can think of is to iterate over the BasicBlocks of each Function, look for all the Call Instructions and check if the called function is foo. I was wondering if there is any other

Hello all, I'm trying the Hello pass example in the "Writing an LLVM Pass" webpage ( http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#basiccode ). I followed the instructions to compile (with gcc-4.2) the Hello.cpp, but I got the compile errors: Hello.cpp:20: error: expected identifier before string constant Hello.cpp:20: error: expected ',' or '...' before string

Rakesh Komuravelli wrote: > Hi, > > I am writing an LLVM Pass and I would like to know how would I do the > following: > > 1. I have a function foo, and I need to get all the call points calling > this function in each Function of the Module. The only way I can think > of is to iterate over the BasicBlocks of each Function, look for all the > Call Instructions and

While learning to write LLVM passes and following the precise instructions under http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html, <http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html> I got this error when loading the hello pass to run the test program: opt -load ./Release/lib/Hello.so -hello < test/test.bc > /dev/null Error opening './Release/lib/Hello.so': ./Release/lib/Hello.so:

Hi, I noticed this code in lib/Transforms/Scalar/InstructionCombining.cpp: cerr << "WARNING: While resolving call to function '" << Callee->getName() << "' arguments were dropped!\n"; If you're using LLVM as a static compiler, this warning is a bit incongruous, because it's not formatted in the same way as warnings from

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

Hello, I have a couple of doubts, as listed below: 1. To list all the global variables in the module, I am iterating using type_iterator and for each Type I get, I am using value_iterator to iterate over Values . In the second iteration I am getting unexpected results. For each type obtained from type_iterator->second, value_iterator->first produces the same list as what

Test Cases: (attached) Iteration code: (...) typedef TarjanSCC_iterator<CallGraph*> MyTarjan; CallGraph& callGraph = getAnalysis<CallGraph>(); MyTarjan iter = tarj_begin(&callGraph); MyTarjan end = tarj_end(&callGraph); while(iter!=end) iter++; (...) if you take the time to print out the function each non-looping node iter traverses, it never reaches main...

Hey Chuck, I'm afraid I can't reproduce your error but...a problem you may run into later is that opt will complain with opt: llvm/lib/VMCore/Pass.cpp:149: void<unnamed>::PassRegistrar::RegisterPass(const llvm::PassInfo&): Assertion `Inserted && "Pass registered multiple times!"' failed. Aborted I "fixed" this by replacing the LLVMLIBS line in

1. If we run a few passes in a sequence ..is the bytecode file transformed after each pass in sequence i.e if we have a) opt -pass1 -pass2 -pass3 < in.bc > out.bc b)opt -pass1 -pass2 < in.bc > tmp.bc opt -pass3 < tmp.bc > out.bc are the above two equivalent ? what I basically want is to run my pass on an optimised bytecode , so should i optimize it and get a new bytecode

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 using LLVM for my Post Graduate course project on Optimization. I am trying to do some insrtumentation to the bytecode.I 've been going through your Instrumentation code for the past few days in /llvm/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation folder and finally found two ways of instrumentation : 1) injecting LLVM bytecode instructions 2) calling an external C function. I am trying both and

On Feb 27, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Jay Foad wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed this code in lib/Transforms/Scalar/InstructionCombining.cpp: > > cerr << "WARNING: While resolving call to function '" > << Callee->getName() << "' arguments were dropped!\n"; > > If you're using LLVM as a static compiler, this warning is a

On Wed, 31 May 2006, Silken Tiger wrote: >> that requires a BasicBlockPass, it will fail the same was as when a >> ModulePass requires a FunctionPass. > void MParSchedule::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { > AU.setPreservesAll(); > } > > MParSchedule requires nothing and changes nothing. So hopefully the above code > represents this fact? Right

Hi all, as proposed in http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-February/020396.html I implemented the algorithm presented in [Ball94]. It only instruments the minimal number of edges necessary for edge profiling. The main changes introduced by this patch are: *) a interface compatible rewrite of ProfileInfo *) a cleanup of ProfileInfoLoader (some functionality in ProfileInfoLoader

On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 23:19, Abhijit Ray wrote: > 1. If we run a few passes in a sequence ..is the bytecode file > transformed after each pass in sequence i.e > > if we have > a) opt -pass1 -pass2 -pass3 < in.bc > out.bc > b)opt -pass1 -pass2 < in.bc > tmp.bc > opt -pass3 < tmp.bc > out.bc > > are the above two equivalent ? Yes, they're

Hi all, I want to find all the called functions in each function, thus I iterate the calledFunctions of each CallGraphNode in CallGraph as follow: for (CallGraph::iterator it = CG->begin(); it != CG->end(); ++it) { CallGraphNode* node = it->second; for (CallGraphNode::iterator it2 = node->begin(); it2 != node->end(); ++it2) { Function* calledFunc =

Thanks, I've been through the documentation, and if I visit main, i think everything will turn out correctly... Printing out the Call graph reveals that main is calling this external node i think you are making reference to. Could this be the problem? Dave On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Chris Lattner wrote: > > if you take the time to print out the function each non-looping node iter >

Hi Am Dienstag, 30. Mai 2006 19:21 schrieb Chris Lattner: > On Tue, 30 May 2006, Silken Tiger wrote: > > Everthing now compiles fine, but when running llc with invoking my own > > backend derived from the cbackend i get the following error: > > namespace llvm { > > class MParSchedule : public BasicBlockPass { > > public: > > > >

Rakesh Komuravelli wrote: > Hi John, > > I am having the exact same problem. Let me answer the four questions > that you have asked.. > > 1) Are both passes included in the same dynamic library? If not, are > you loading their respective libraries with multiple -load options? > > Yes. I load both the libraries with two -load options. I see both the > passes listed