similar to: [LLVMdev] Question about GVN

Hi All, I need to remove successors from every basic block to insert new ones I tried this code, but it doesn't work void RemoveSuccessor(TerminatorInst *TI, unsigned SuccNum) { assert(SuccNum < TI->getNumSuccessors() && "Trying to remove a nonexistant successor!"); // If our old successor block contains any PHI nodes, remove the entry in the //

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 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 Rasha, > I need to addDestination to some basic blocks Just to make sure there's no confusion here: you really are trying to create code like: define i32 @foo(i1 %tst) { %Address = select i1 %tst, i8* blockaddress(@foo, %true), i8* blockaddress(@foo, %false) indirectbr i8* %Address, [label %true, label %false] ; This is what you're creating true: ret i32 42 false: ret i32

1- I need the first example. 2- I set the Address uninitialized according to the documentation " Setting the name on the Value automatically updates the module's symbol table" from Value.h source code 3- I'm not sure about "select" instruction, you mean that the address is the new destination (basic block)that will be added Thanks On 23 July 2013 16:38, Tim Northover

Hi Rasha, On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Rasha Omar <rasha.sala7 at gmail.com> wrote: > 1- I need the first example. Oh good. > 2- I set the Address uninitialized according to the documentation > " Setting the name on the Value automatically updates the module's symbol > table" from Value.h source code That's referring to a string name, and is only really

Hello all, I have written a pass, which replaces condition branchinst using indirectBr to obfuscate program. The origin IR is as the following: br i1 %1, label %2, label %3 And the transformed IR is as the follwoing: %4 = select i1 %1, i8* blockaddress(@func, %2), i8* blockaddress(@func, %3) indirectbr i8* %4, [label %2, label %3] The pass's core function is as the

On 12/1/2012 10:02 AM, James Molloy wrote: > > I'm proposing a new function attribute, "noclone", with the semantics that "calls to functions marked "noclone" cannot be cloned or duplicated into the same function.". That is, it is illegal to call J = I->clone() then attach J to the same basic block as I if I is marked "noclone". The class Loop

With Debug mode, it shows the assert error: Assertion failed: (I != BlockLiveness.end() && "Predecessor not found"), function calculateLocalLiveness, file lib/CodeGen/StackColoring.cpp, line 782. 1. <eof> parser at end of file 2. Code generation 3. Running pass 'Function Pass Manager' on module 'busybox/archival/libarchive/decompress_bunzip2.c'. 4. Running

Hi, OpenCL has a "barrier" function with very specific semantics, and there is currently no analogue to model this in LLVM. This has been touched on by the SPIR folks but I don't believe they put forward a proposal. The barrier function is a special function that ensures that all workitems executing a kernel have executed up to that point before execution on any workitem can

Hi Rasha, > 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)); > } This would be creating a block looking something like: [ Do stuff ] indirectbr i8*

> Maybe a similar interface could be added to Instruction, and an > instruction would declare itself unsafe to clone if it was a call to a > function with the attribute that you are proposing. I experimented with something similar to this, where Instruction::clone ensured it wasn't "noclone" - if it was, it asserted. But that broke the use-case of cloning whole functions.