similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM tries to remove labels used in blockaddress()

I see. But the block does not necessarily contain dead code. My original problem is more like this: define i32 @main() { entry: %target = bitcast i8* blockaddress(@test_fun, %test_label) to i8* call i32 @test_fun(i8* %target) ret i32 0 } define i32 @test_fun(i8* %target) { entry: indirectbr i8* %target, [label %test_label] test_label: ; assume some code here... br label %ret ret: ret

On Mar 15, 2010, at 7:11 AM, Sebastian Schlunke wrote: > Hi, > > i ran into a problem when using blockaddress() with a label in another function. It seems to me that LLVM tries to remove the label used in blockaddress because it seems like it is not used, but in fact it may be used somewhere with a indirectbr. > > I attached a small test-case that produces this error. (The

Works like a charm! Thanks for the fast help. :) - Sebastian On Monday 15 March 2010 20:10:54 you wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Sebastian Schlunke wrote: > > > I see. But the block does not necessarily contain dead code. > > This case is now fixed in r98566, I will fix the 'dead block' case in a bit. > > -Chris > > > > > My

On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Sebastian Schlunke wrote: > I see. But the block does not necessarily contain dead code. This case is now fixed in r98566, I will fix the 'dead block' case in a bit. -Chris > > My original problem is more like this: > > define i32 @main() { > entry: > %target = bitcast i8* blockaddress(@test_fun, %test_label) to i8* > > call

On Mar 15, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2010, at 7:11 AM, Sebastian Schlunke wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> i ran into a problem when using blockaddress() with a label in another function. It seems to me that LLVM tries to remove the label used in blockaddress because it seems like it is not used, but in fact it may be used somewhere with a

On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Bob Wilson wrote: >>> An earlier revision simply generated asm-code, where the appropriate label was missing, thus causing gcc to fail when i wanted to compile the asm-file. >> >> Here is a slightly reduced testcase: >> >> define i8* @test1() nounwind { >> entry: >> ret i8* blockaddress(@test_fun, %test_label) >> }

In my llvm jit project I needed to lookup BB addresses at execution time and then jump to the corresponding BB. A C++ routine called at runtime from IR finds the right BB, gets its BlockAddress and returns it as an i8*. The IR does an indirectbr on this value... Well, not really. The routine returns the address of a BlockAddress node. Is there any way to get the real runtime code address for the

I'm trying to figure out how to feed a blockaddress to a switch condition AND destination (basically emulating an indirectbr via a switch; I know it's not a good approach, I'm just experimenting). Suppose I have the following: SwitchInst *s = SwitchInst::Create(...); BasicBlock *bb = ...; PtrToIntInst k = new PtrToIntInst(BlockAddress::get(bb), <TYPE>, "", s);

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Maurice Marks <maurice.marks at gmail.com> wrote: > In my llvm jit project I needed to lookup BB addresses at execution time and > then jump to the corresponding BB. A C++ routine called at runtime from IR > finds the right BB, gets its BlockAddress and returns it as an i8*. The IR > does an indirectbr on this value... > Well, not really. The

I've been playing around with the new IndirectBr and BlockAddress types. I'm finding that in CodeGen, during "EliminateMostlyEmptyBlocks", BlockAddresses are not updated to point to the newly merged block if the original block was eliminated. This is causing me problems. Mind you, I'm experimenting with this using the Sparc backend, which could be the source of blame, but

Hi all, I have a question concerning block address class in LLVM. I am currently working on a project where I need to obtain and manipulate basic block virtual addresses. I was searching the web and found the llvm::BlockAddress class (http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1BlockAddress.html). With this class I was able to obtain a printout like this: i8* blockaddress(@func_name, %bb_label) How do

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Carlo Alberto Ferraris <cafxx at strayorange.com> wrote: > I'm trying to figure out how to feed a blockaddress to a switch condition > AND destination (basically emulating an indirectbr via a switch; I know it's > not a good approach, I'm just experimenting). > Suppose I have the following: > > SwitchInst *s =

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 04:14:03PM -0400, Brenda So via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi all, > > I have a question concerning block address class in LLVM. I am currently > working on a project where I need to obtain and manipulate basic block virtual > addresses. I was searching the web and found the llvm::BlockAddress class ( > http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1BlockAddress.html). With

My apologies. This problem was indeed with my changes to the backend. Next time I will more carefully examine the source of the problem. :) On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Marc de Kruijf <dekruijf at wisc.edu> wrote: > I've been playing around with the new IndirectBr and BlockAddress types. > I'm finding that in CodeGen, during "EliminateMostlyEmptyBlocks", >

Hi all, I recently updated my LLVM tree and I have a strange issue with the use of blockaddress. The LLVM file that I try to compile is [1]. I do: > llvm-as test_ba.ll > opt -O2 test_ba.bc -o test_ba_opt.bc > llc test_ba_opt.bc In r159116 (committed in 24/06/2012) I get (in the end of the .s file): .type table_closures, at object # @table_closures .section .rodata,"a",

On 9/17/2012 11:59 AM, Yiannis Tsiouris wrote: > Hi all, > > I recently updated my LLVM tree and I have a strange issue with the use > of blockaddress. The LLVM file that I try to compile is [1]. Taking the address of a block by itself has zero guarantees about whether or not that block will exist by the time the code is emitted. If the block no longer exists by the end, it gets

Hi 1- for(rit=Result.begin();rit!=Result.end();++rit) { Value* Address= BlockAddress::get (*rit); IndirectBrInst *IBI = IndirectBrInst::Create(Address, Result.size(),i->getTerminator() ); IBI->addDestination((*rit)); } I tried this code , but the needed destination wasn't added. 2- About LLVM backend $ llc -march=cpp example_file.ll -o I think it

Hi, How does the requirement that phi instructions have one value per predecessor basic block interact with indirectbr instructions? For instance, take the following code: L1: br i1 %somevalue, label %L2, label %L3 L2: %ret1 = i8* blockaddress(@myfunction, %L5) br label %L4 L3: %ret2 = i8* blockaddress(@myfunction, %L6) br label %L4 L4: %ret = phi i8* [%ret1, L2], [%ret2, L3]

Hi, I need to addDestination to some basic blocks I used the following code Value* Address; IndirectBrInst *IBI = IndirectBrInst::Create(Address, Result.size(),i->getTerminator() ); IBI->addDestination(i); The following error was issued void llvm::IndirectBrInst::init(llvm::Value *, unsigned int): Assertion `Address && Address->getType()->isPointerTy() &&

Hi, I'm writing a pass that implements a jump table with an array of blockaddress and an indirectbr instruction. It get a blockaddress in the array (via getelementptr and an index) and then jump to this basicblock via the indirectbr. I tried to compile several libraries to test my pass and the run their test-suite. It works fine with, for e.g, libTomCrypt (in -O0,1,2,3). With GMP or