similar to: [LLVMdev] Small error in documentation?

On Feb 12, 2010, at 7:09 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#BasicBlock > > "This class represents a single entry multiple exit section of the > code, commonly known as a basic block by the compiler community." > > This should perhaps read 'single entry single exit'? basic blocks can end with conditional branches etc,

I'm looking at the documentation on Twine at http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#llvm-adt-twine-h and it gives example code: void foo(const Twine &T); ... StringRef X = ... unsigned i = ... foo(X + "." + Twine(i)); How exactly does that last line work? Since addition is left associative, I would expect it to be parsed as (X + ".") ... so it's trying to add

Ah! I didn't know about verifyFunction; it does indeed catch it, thanks! I'll leave that call in my code for all cases for the moment, should help identify problems like that. Is there a recommended way to avoid this problem when compiling a language that has an explicit and optional return statement? On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote:

One of the things I'm trying to do is perform high-level optimizations on loops, which requires first identifying them. For a simple case, suppose you have something like for (size_t i = 0; i != n; ++i) ++a[i]; If a is a simple array, that will compile to a single basic block, which is easy enough to identify. But the body doesn't need to be a single basic block. It could contain

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:50 AM, mats petersson <mats at planetcatfish.com> wrote: > It will iterate over the instructions in the order that they are stored in > the module/function/basicblock that they belong to. And that SHOULD, > assuming llvm-dis does what it is expected to do, be the same order. > Thanks for the reply. What about instruction ordering across basic blocks?

Hi there, I'm trying to get a list of predecessors of a BasicBlock. I'm using a code similar to that on here (http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#iterate_preds), but it appears to be more nodes been iterating that it should. Now, when I print out the llvm IR, I get something like: […] while.body: ; preds = %7, %while.cond […] for a code that

Does inst_iterator (http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#iterating-over-the-instruction-in-a-function) guarantee that the iterated instructions are in program order: the order of instructions printed by llvm-dis? Thanks in advance, Anirudh

Hi, Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Gurunath Kadam via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Date: 11/27/2016 7:49 PM (GMT-06:00) To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: [llvm-dev] LLVM Pass for Instructions in Function (error Hi, Please find the embedded code. Also you may follow

On 6/16/15 1:09 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > Anirudh Sivaraman wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:50 AM, mats >> petersson<mats at planetcatfish.com> wrote: >>> It will iterate over the instructions in the order that they are >>> stored in >>> the module/function/basicblock that they belong to. And that SHOULD, >>> assuming llvm-dis does

> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 abhi232 at cc.gatech.edu wrote: >> Hello all, >> I am new to the llvm infrastructure so if this question is already >> resolved please redirect me to that link. >> >> I am writing a pass for flow sensitive and context sensitive alias >> analysis.for that i require the previous and next instruction of all the >> instructions.Is there

Hi Cristianno, > I'm trying to get a list of predecessors of a BasicBlock. I'm using a code > similar to that on here > <http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#iterate_preds>, but it appears to > be more nodes been iterating that it should. Now, when I print out the llvm IR, > I get something like: > […] > while.body: ; preds = %7, %while.cond > […] >

> On Nov 27, 2016, at 6:40 PM, Gurunath Kadam via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi Sandeep, > > Thanks. > > One question about: > > Value* AddrPointer = Inst->getIperand(0); > > So this works for LVALUE(S) i.e. in my case pointer on LHS of '='. I cannot find anything online about getloperand online. > > For reference

I am programmatically building some functions in intermediate representation, and trying to verify them, but the verifier always reports that there is a problem, and I can't see why. Minimal test case: #ifdef _MSC_VER #pragma warning(disable : 4141) #pragma warning(disable : 4530) #pragma warning(disable : 4624) #endif #include <llvm/IR/IRBuilder.h> #include <llvm/IR/Verifier.h>

Thank you! I wanted to use the right part of the instruction , %a = alloca i32, align 4 - %a here , but I don't quite understand the difference between Instruction object and Value object of a, which is used further , and in this case : %1 = alloca i32, align 4 - I also wanted to use %1 and in this case the only possibility is Instruction object. 2017-07-20 15:32 GMT+02:00 Evgeny Astigeevich

On 1 July 2015 at 11:34, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote: > Why do you say spin? You're dismissing all use-cases other than this very narrow one I'd (with my own spin) characterise as "Do What I Mean, I Can't Be Bothered To Get My Code Right". Fair enough, you're arguing in favour of a point; but it's not one I agree with. Tim.

You're right, it can indeed. Is there a reason -O3 doesn't do this? I had been expecting -O3 to perform full optimization. The first block still remains in any case. Is the first block needed for some purpose I'm not taking into account? On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Xiangyang Guo <eceguo at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > if you use opt -simplifycfg, the third BB can

I am building code which needs to examine dominating relationships between Basic Blocks. I searched the Programming Guide (http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#common), it mentioned briefly that such details will be covered in the future. So, I am tuning to the list and ask. Say, I have BasicBlock * a, *b, and need to know whether a DOM b, (a DOMi b, a DOMp b, a PostDOM b), etc. How

Please reply-all so that the thread is kept on llvmdev. The LLVM Programmer's Manual has examples of how to iterate over many common structures, such as instructions in a basic block[1]. Other than that, you can check the source code or doxygen[2]. Basically, you loop over the instructions as detailed in the programmer's manual[1], and loop over the operands using User's

Yes, I'm running all the existing passes that I know how to run. I didn't know they returned change-made. Thanks! On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Artur Pilipenko < apilipenko at azulsystems.com> wrote: > Are you going to run some of the existing passes? Why can’t you just use > the returned change-made value from the passes? > > Artur > > > On 20 Dec 2015, at

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Russell Wallace > <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote: >> What's the largest integer such that something like 'return ((a * b) / >> c) >> d' works correctly on all major platforms? > > Twice the size of a pointer, i.e. 64 bits on