similar to: [LLVMdev] a question of the simple constant propagation pass

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Yea, I've noticed that. However, it looks like inst_iterator is iterator over > pointers. Oh, wait a minite, that's the current code: > > inline IIty operator*() const { return BI; } > inline IIty operator->() const { return operator*(); } > > So operator* works as if value_type is Instruction*, but operator->

Chris Lattner wrote: > > inline IIty operator*() const { return BI; } > > inline IIty operator->() const { return operator*(); } > > > > So operator* works as if value_type is Instruction*, but operator-> works > > as if value_type is Instruction. Hmm ;-) > > Yeah, fishy huh? :) Yea, a bit. I've decided that before changing that I'd better

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > and since result of *it is considered to be rvalue it can't be accepted > > by this operator. The complete discussion is in > > > > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1385.htm > > > > I'd suggest to apply the following patch which makes operator* return >

Hello all, I am a LLVM newer who want to obtain the use-def chain for all instruction of a sample code, for this purpose i use the following code. ///////////////sample code:///////////////////////// #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <time.h> #define ARRAY_SIZE 5 int main() { int x, y, holder; int k,z,f,i; z=0; f=0; k=0; for(x = 0; x < ARRAY_SIZE;

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > and since result of *it is considered to be rvalue it can't be accepted by > this operator. The complete discussion is in > > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1385.htm > > I'd suggest to apply the following patch which makes operator* return > reference to pointer. It makes my code compile and the rest

Hi While compiling the ConstantProp.cpp I am getting the following error. error: too few arguments to function ‘llvm::Constant* llvm::ConstantFoldInstruction( llvm::Instruction*, llvm::LLVMContext&, const llvm::TargetData*) I am using llvm-2.6 and the ConstProp.cpp file is http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/ConstantProp_8cpp_source.html and the exact error message is: llvm[0]: Compiling

I am using llvm-2.6 and the ConstProp.cpp file is http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/ConstantProp_8cpp_source.html and the exact error message is: llvm[0]: Compiling ConstantProp.cpp for Release build (PIC) /home/tarun/Desktop/compiler/LLVM/llvm-2.6/include/llvm/Analysis/ConstantFolding.h: In member function ‘virtual bool<unnamed>::ConstantPropagation::runOnFunction(llvm::Function&)’:

LLVM has two similar bits of infrastructure: a simplifyInstructionsInBlock function and a SimplifyInstructions pass, both intended to be lightweight “fix up this code without doing serious optimizations” functions, as far as I can tell. I don’t think either is used in a performance-sensitive place in-tree; the former is mostly called in minor places when doing CFG twiddling, and the latter seems

On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:27 PM, tarun agrawal <tarun at cse.iitb.ac.in> wrote: > I am using llvm-2.6  and the ConstProp.cpp file is > http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/ConstantProp_8cpp_source.html > > and the exact error message is: > > llvm[0]: Compiling ConstantProp.cpp for Release build  (PIC) >

Hello, I think there's a rather subtle problem with the inst_iterator. It declares its iterator category as std::bidirectional_iterator_tag but C++ standard requirements for forward iterator (which are included in requirements for bidirection iterator), say that the type of expression *r; should be T&, where 'r' is the iterator and T is its value type. The inst_iterator,

On 11/24/2010 03:36 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > Andrew Clinton wrote: >> Most of my programs contain loops that the LoopDeletion pass is unable >> to remove. It appears that the following code in LoopDeletion.cpp:152 >> is the culprit: >> >> ScalarEvolution& SE = getAnalysis<ScalarEvolution>(); >> const SCEV *S =

On Aug 29, 2011, at 12:38 PM, ret val wrote: > I am looping through all instructions in a Function and depending on > what I found I may or may not insert code. Despite the fact that I'm > only actually inserting *before* instruction I have a infinite loop > when I do something like below. For awhile it was simple enough to > just increment i enough times but now I need

Edwin, thanks, it starts making sense inline comments... Török Edwin wrote: > On 2009-09-06 19:57, Ioannis Nousias wrote: > >> Edwin, >> >> thank you for your effort, but I'm not sure I understand. >> Are you describing a graph traversal problem? Is the data model stored >> in a predecessor/successor fashion, which requires you to 'walk' the

Edwin, thank you for your effort, but I'm not sure I understand. Are you describing a graph traversal problem? Is the data model stored in a predecessor/successor fashion, which requires you to 'walk' the graph in order to visit all nodes? (and what happens when you have disjointed DFGs?). inline comments follow... Török Edwin wrote: > On 2009-09-06 17:30, Ioannis Nousias

On 2009-09-06 17:30, Ioannis Nousias wrote: > I've tried to write a DFGPrinter based on the CFGPrinter, as you > suggested, but encountered problems. > > The GraphWriter expects > GraphTraits<GraphType>::nodes_begin()/nodes_end(). The way this is > implemented in CFG.h, a function is a graph of basic blocks. A > GraphTraits<Function*> inherits from

On 2009-09-06 19:57, Ioannis Nousias wrote: > Edwin, > > thank you for your effort, but I'm not sure I understand. > Are you describing a graph traversal problem? Is the data model stored > in a predecessor/successor fashion, which requires you to 'walk' the > graph in order to visit all nodes? (and what happens when you have > disjointed DFGs?). Sorry for the

Something must be wrong, more probable on my side. So the C source code is unchanged, I just did another experiment to first extract all the GEPs in the code, and call AliasAnalysis::alias on each pair of GEPs. Here is the code: AliasAnalysis &AA = getAnalysis<AliasAnalysis>(); TargetData &TD = getAnalysis<TargetData>(); for (Module::iterator it = M.begin();

Hi. Thanks. I changed the code but the problem exists. This is my new code which is again very simple: ... bool runOnFunction(Function &F) override { vector<Instruction *> dels; dels.clear(); for (inst_iterator It = inst_begin(&F), Ie = inst_end(&F); It != Ie;) { Instruction *I = &*(It++); if (auto* op = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(I)) { IRBuilder<NoFolder>

hi how can i write IRinstruction on a file.txt? when i use  {for(inst_iterator I = inst_begin(F), E = inst_end(F); I != E; ++I,count++)  IRcodefile << std::basic_ostream(*I) <<"\n" } i get  error. is there any way that i can write it on file? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, i want to get the address in memory of an instruction pointer and use it as a key in my tables. i iterate over the instructions in LLVM IR like this: for (Module::iterator fi = Mod->begin(), fi_end = Mod->end(); fi != fi_end; ++fi) { for (inst_iterator I = inst_begin(fi), E = inst_end(fi); I != E; ++I) { Instruction *ii = dyn_cast<Instruction>(&*I);