similar to: [LLVMdev] crash in 2.7: SCCPSolver::ResolvedUndefsIn

Hi LLVMers, I can't figure out why these errors exits: ------------------------- llvm[2]: Linking Debug executable opt c:/projects/build/MinGW/llvm-4-1/Debug/lib/LLVMProfilePaths.o(.text$_ZN4llvm10BranchInstC1EPNS_10BasicBlockES2_+0x52): In function `ZN9__gnu_cxx13new_allocatorISt13_Rb_tree_nodeISt4pairIKPN4llvm8FunctionEPNS3_5GraphEEEE10deallocateEPSA_j':

I stumbled upon a baffling error while compiling my pass. I was moving my development environment and updated LLVM to the trunk number 350084 in the meantime. [ 11%] Building CXX object lib/Transforms/TimePred/CMakeFiles/TimePred.dir/Common/Formatter.cpp.o /home/gwangmu/opt/llvm/lib/Transforms/TimePred/Common/Formatter.cpp:182:24: error: ‘TerminatorInst’ was not declared in this scope void

Hi all, I was trying to implement an obfuscation tool for C-code on the basis of LLVM. I got a prototype of the simple obfuscation transformation which converting control flow graph to something like a state machine. I am not sure I will have time to work on extending further this tool with new transformations like opaque predicates and decided to put here source code I have by now with hope

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 //

Newbie Question .. (sorry if its redundant/silly) .. As I've started to develop Stacker, I had assumed that simply adding BasicBlocks to a function in sequence would imply that there is an implicit unconditional branch from the end of one basic block to the start of the next block. Based on the assertion checks that I get when I tried this, I assume that it is required to place a terminating

Your patch should include a testcase, see test/Analysis/ScalarEvolution for examples. "BranchInst* " should be "BranchInst *". You should have spaces after the // in your comments. One of the comment lines isn't indented properly. Nick On 8 February 2012 12:05, Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com> wrote: > Attached > > 2012/2/8 Marcello Maggioni

Mmm, sorry, the patch I posted crashes if ExitBr is null (which it may be ...) , this one should be ok (and passess all the ScalarEvolution tests in LLVM): diff --git a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp index daf7742..b10fab2 100644 --- a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp +++ b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp @@ -4293,9 +4293,15 @@

On 8 February 2012 15:50, Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com> wrote: > Well, it wasn't intended as a "real" patch to be included , but more > as a "proof of concept" for a solution. Do you think it is a valid > solution and I'm correct in my assumption? If so then I'll clean up > the patch and attach a testcase for inclusion. > I'm

This is instead a very simple (handmade) test case that triggers the problem (attached) Also a more conforming patch has been attached 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > This is the .ll for that graph (attached). I think I understand what > you are saying. > This particular testcase returns CNC not because the exit block > doesn't have a unique predecessor,

FInally I had the time to complete everything up. Now I included the test case in the patch and the testcase runs with the LLVM tests system. 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > This is instead a very simple (handmade) test case that triggers the > problem (attached) > Also a more conforming patch has been attached > > 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms

Well, it wasn't intended as a "real" patch to be included , but more as a "proof of concept" for a solution. Do you think it is a valid solution and I'm correct in my assumption? If so then I'll clean up the patch and attach a testcase for inclusion. Thanks! Marcello 2012/2/9 Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com>: > Your patch should include a testcase,

Attached 2012/2/8 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > Mmm, sorry, the patch I posted crashes if ExitBr is null (which it may > be ...) , this one should be ok (and passess all the ScalarEvolution > tests in LLVM): > > diff --git a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp > index daf7742..b10fab2 100644 > ---

This is the .ll for that graph (attached). I think I understand what you are saying. This particular testcase returns CNC not because the exit block doesn't have a unique predecessor, but because the unique predecessor (the inner loop block) has a successor that is inside the loop (in this case itself, because it's the inner loop block). That doesn't change, anyway, the assuption that

Under what circumstances will a TerminatorInst will have multiple successors? The three methods: virtual BasicBlock *getSuccessorV(unsigned idx) const = 0; virtual unsigned getNumSuccessorsV() const = 0; virtual void setSuccessorV(unsigned idx, BasicBlock *B) = 0; are defined for the TerminatorInst class, but I cannot see why a terminator is allowed to go to different targets. Thanks,

Hello, I'm finding problems with BackEdgeTaken count calculation in even simple fortran loops with gfortran-4.6 + DragonEgg 3.0. Even for simple double loops like this one: program test2 integer i,j,k dimension k(100,100) do j=1,100 do i=1,100 k(i,j) = i enddo enddo write(*,*) k(1,30) end make the ScalarEvolution

How could BranchInst be used to insert new branch between two basic blocks to get result like this example: br label %if.else br label %if.then br i1 %cmp1, label %if.then, label %if.else Thanks for your help On 14 August 2013 21:36, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > Your question isn't clear; please restate what specifically isn't working. > > -Eli

Hi, The checking about that if this is a terminator that it is at the end of the block has been applied twice (bellow). One is at Verifier::visitInstruction, and the other is at Verifier::visitTerminatorInst. Since visitInstruction is called when visiting each instruction, the checking at visitTerminatorInst seems redundant to me. Did I miss any case? void Verifier::visitInstruction(Instruction

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:49 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Moving to LLVM dev to discuss the possibility of extending the cast > infrastructure to handle this. > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:51 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: >> On Nov 18, 2012, at 5:05 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >>> TypeLoc

In a pass I would like to insert a ICmpInst/BranchInst pair to check if 2 GlobalVariables are equal or not. If they are not I would like to call a function. I've tried splitting the current block and then inserting before the existing instructions, but for some reason this seems to ruin the iterator(i). What is the correct way todo something like this? void checkShadowPtr(Module &M,

+1, sounds like a great idea And if you're volunteering to do the work, even better! :) Philip p.s. Any reason we can't preserve a TerminatorInst type with an isa function which just returns true for all our terminators but without having terminators actually inherit from it?  If so, we preserve the bit of a "type safety" for a variable which is expected to always point to