similar to: [LLVMdev] determine the basic_block inside if and else

Hello I'm wandring to write a Function parser that iterates over loops inside each function and inside each loop iterates over instructions So I found a way to do the Function parser that iterates over BasicBlocks (using the runOnfunction Pass) but I no know how make it iterates over loops ? So my question is there any way to make a loop inside the runOnfunction to iterate over

Hello I'm wandring to know how many times a block is executed inside a loop ? knowing that I can't use getSmallConstantTripCount() because the number is unkown "for (i=0;i<N;i++) for example" I'm using a Function pass for (Function::iterator BB = F.begin(), E = F.end(); BB != E; ++BB) { if (Loop *L = LI->getLoopFor(BB)) { if (L->getHeader() ==

On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:31 AM, khaled hamidouche wrote: > I'm wandring to know how many times a block is executed inside a > loop ? > knowing that I can't use getSmallConstantTripCount() because the > number is unkown "for (i=0;i<N;i++) for example" In general, the number of iterations is undecidable. For example: int main(char **argv, int N) { for

In your example the the number of iterations is known -- it is N. It is not known at compile time, but it's known at run-time before you enter the loop. So you can do transforms like if( N < threshold ) copy of loop optimized for small iterations count; else copy of loop optimized for large iterations count; But you are right, in general, the number of iterations in unknown. I think Khaled

Hello I'm trying to install LLVM and LLVM GCC so I check out the source of llvm and llvm-gcc-4.2 from the svn I flow the instructions of this page http://llvm.org/docs/GCCFEBuildInstrs.html I did the installation of LLVM and LLVM GCC well but the problem is there is no llvm-gcc at the end of instalation !!! ?? I mean in the /usr/local/bin/ there are all the commands of llvm (lli llc llvmc

You need to manually copy the llvm-gcc front-end binaries to somewhere in your path. Alternatively, you can download the clang front-end and start using that instead. On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:58 AM, khaled hamidouche <khaledhamidouche at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello > > I'm trying to install LLVM and LLVM GCC > so I check out  the source of llvm and llvm-gcc-4.2 from the svn

Hi all, I'm a new LLVM user and I'm wandring to know if there is a pass to outline a delimited part of a code in a separate function and replace this portion of code by a call to this function ? Thank you -- K.H -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121204/be34df14/attachment.html>

Hi Misha, Thanks for your answer I was doing this: ======================== BasicBlock *BBlock = new BasicBlock("entry", MyFunc); ... Value *Zero = ConstantSInt::get(Type::IntTy, 0); Value *UZero = ConstantUInt::get(Type::UIntTy, 0); MallocInst* mi = new MallocInst( STyStru ); mi->setName("tmp.0"); BBlock->getInstList().push_back( mi );

khaled hamidouche wrote: > Hello > > I'm trying to install LLVM and LLVM GCC > so I check out the source of llvm and llvm-gcc-4.2 from the svn > > I flow the instructions of this page > http://llvm.org/docs/GCCFEBuildInstrs.html > > I did the installation of LLVM and LLVM GCC well but the problem is > there is no llvm-gcc at the end of instalation !!! ?? >

Thanks for fixing this Sanjoy! I do have a few questions/suggestions on the fix if you don't mind. 1) Would this work correctly if the values are call instructions with no operands, like this- %a = foo() %b = bar() 2) From the way this function is set up, it looks like the emphasis is on saving compile time by trading off robustness. Is compile time such a big concern here that we want to

Thanks for the helpful reply! I see that we are trying to keep ScalarEvolution stable around instruction ordering. My suggestion would be to not restrict the fix by only recursing on the first operand. By "dominator logic" I meant that if all other 'cheap' checks fail, we should decide by walking the dominator tree to see which instruction's basic block is encountered

Hello How to get the type of an Operand ? so for example I want to get the type of the operand(0) in this istruction %arrayidx22 = getelementptr [1000 x double]* %C, i64 0, i64 %indvar67 ; <double*> [#uses=1] I tried (II->getOperand(0))->getType() ) but this give me an adress (I think) (some think like 0x1253.. ) also I tried to get the type of the instruction with switch

Hello is there any way to pass argument to my own Function pass I mean I wrote a Function pass (like Hello) that give me somme analyzes about the code source and I need to pass somme argument to the Pass like the size of data.... I want some think like this opt -load ../../../Debug/lib/LLVMHello.so -hello2 < test.bc > /dev/null arg1 arg2 ... So how to get inside the Function pass the

Hello. I need to do some specific steps to bring up network for domain. I can't use bridge, nat, and other modes. I prefer ethernet type networking that bring up by script. But in case os script i have one big problem - how can i determine and get some domain data - for example if i get domain id, or mac address i can get other needed config. How can i get this data inside the script? Now i

Hello all, I am new to this list and hopefully I am at the right place. Firstly, thanks to everyone involved in this project. You do a great job! Now, I use "net" to join Windows AD domains and was wondering where I can find out more information on what happens during a "net ads testjoin". The information I found on the documentation pages of net or smb.conf on the website

> > SNIP > > Is there anyone who can help with this question? prism# net ads testjoin Join is OK That's about it. Pretty simple. > > > > Regards, > Khaled > > 2010/4/30 Khaled Blah <khaled.blah at googlemail.com>: >> >> Can anyone give me any hints please? I've read the man pages for >> smb.conf and for net and then I read the

Hello, I would like to know whether it is possible to select (a) specific IP(s) for a "net ads dns register" call. The reason for my question is that we have setups with several interfaces, a few of which are "internal" interfaces but technically they're ethernet interfaces. Adding all those internal interfaces to a Windows AD server leads to the DNS server giving out the

On Sep 3, 2010, at 3:20 AM, Jeff Kunkel wrote: > Perhaps what I think is a problem really is not a problem. Yep. > The information I need is where the jumps occurs in the instructions vector. The machine instructions are already separated into basic blocks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_block /jakob

That code should do it, but I realized you only detect setjmp functions by name. My code is calling "__sigsetjmp" not "segsetjmp". You only support these functions: static const char *ReturnsTwiceFns[] = { "_setjmp", "setjmp", "sigsetjmp", "setjmp_syscall", "savectx", "qsetjmp",

On Oct 4, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Khaled ElWazeer > <khalid.alwazeer at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have some code which has sigsetjmp / longjmp. After a longjmp, unreachable >> is inserted, which is fine. The problem is that in the backend before >> calling longjmp, some register was spilled to a