similar to: [LLVMdev] Two quick questions on call graph nodes

Hi Xiaolong, > First, there is a "indirect call node" dominating all other nodes > (include "main"). My question is: what does this special node serves > for? what version of LLVM are you using? I don't think LLVM 2.7 uses a "indirect call node". However it does use a "external node", which is used when a function external to the current

Hello Duncan, Thanks! > > First, there is a "indirect call node" dominating all other nodes > > (include "main"). My question is: what does this special node serves > > for? > > what version of LLVM are you using? I don't think LLVM 2.7 uses a > "indirect call node". However it does use a "external node", which > is

Hello Duncan, > >> what version of LLVM are you using? I don't think LLVM 2.7 uses a > >> "indirect call node". However it does use a "external node", which > >> is used when a function external to the current module is called. > >> > > > > The "external node" makes sense. However, I am using LLVM 2.8. (See >

Hi Xiaolong, I changed the code so it now prints "external node" instead. The external node represents all functions external to the module. So, for example, if a function F calls a function G, but G is only declared in the module, rather than being defined there, then the callgraph gets an edge from F to the external node (the fact that the call was to G is discarded, only the fact

Hi Xiaolong, >> what version of LLVM are you using? I don't think LLVM 2.7 uses a >> "indirect call node". However it does use a "external node", which >> is used when a function external to the current module is called. >> > > The "external node" makes sense. However, I am using LLVM 2.8. (See > the output from "opt

Hi all, Considering the limit time I have for an implementation, I better ask for your inputs on a few questions. Any answer is to be much appreciated. First, how does LLVM handle the "new statement" of C++? Could any one give me any hint? Second, what properties does the callgraph generated by LLVM has? One property I am interesting in is whether the callgraph is a safe

Hello everybody, It seems to me that there is one kind of default optimization executed by llvm-g++, simplifying function parameters in certain cases. Consider the following example: Given an iterator (in the context of C++ STL) (i.e. a class containing a pointer to another class): %"struct.std::_List_const_iterator<int>" = type { %"struct.std::_List_node_base"* }

Hi Xiaolong, > The compilation substitutes "__position.0" for "__position", as shown below: > > define linkonce_odr void @_ZNSt4listIiSaIiEE9_M_insertESt14_List_iteratorIiERKi(%"struct.std::list<int,std::allocator<int> >"* %this, i64 %__position.0, i32* %__x) nounwind ssp { ... } names like this only exist to make the LLVM IR more readable,

Hi all, I am experimenting to run a pass inherited from CallGraphSCCPass. In the pass, I iterate all functions in a SCC. In each iteration, I access all arguments of a function in the following way: Function::arg_iterator PI = fun->arg_begin(), PE = fun->arg_end(); ... I have no trouble with building. However, I am troubled with "segmentation fault" when I run the pass

Thanks, Duncan. > > The compilation substitutes "__position.0" for "__position", as shown below: > > > > define linkonce_odr void @_ZNSt4listIiSaIiEE9_M_insertESt14_List_iteratorIiERKi(%"struct.std::list<int,std::allocator<int> >"* %this, i64 %__position.0, i32* %__x) nounwind ssp { ... } > > names like this only exist to make

Hi Duncan, > > Note that the original parameter (of the function in concern) is of > > type "struct.std::_List_const_iterator<int>", whereas the parameter > > (after the compilation) is of type > > "struct.std::_List_node_base"*. Evidently, llvm-g++ replaces the > > original parameter with its sole field. This is understandable and the >

Hi Xiaolong, > Note that the original parameter (of the function in concern) is of > type "struct.std::_List_const_iterator<int>", whereas the parameter > (after the compilation) is of type > "struct.std::_List_node_base"*. Evidently, llvm-g++ replaces the > original parameter with its sole field. This is understandable and the > LLVM output indicates

Hello Reid, Thanks. > Yes, it's an integral part of the Instruction. You can change it by > providing a name when you create the instruction. Following your hint, can I understand in this following way? The name (denoted by "<result>") is actually a referrer to the instruction . Consider this instruction: %this_addr = alloca %struct.String* ;

Yes, it's an integral part of the Instruction. You can change it by providing a name when you create the instruction. Reid On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Xiaolong Tang <xiaolong.snake at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > In the language specifications, many instructions have this form: > >  <result> = ... > > So, where is "<result>" defined?

Good evening, Tang. > What is the type of the first operand of the instruction (i.e., > getOperand(0))? It might be ConstantExpr. You may use dyn_cast<GEPOperator>(getPointerOperand()). Also GetElementPtrInst* can be casted to GEPOperator. ...Takumi 2010/6/18 Xiaolong Tang <xiaolong.snake at gmail.com>: > > Hey, > > Considering the following instruction: >

Hi all, In the language specifications, many instructions have this form: <result> = ... So, where is "<result>" defined? Is it an integral part of an instruction? Consider the "getelementptr" instruction: <result> = getelementptr <pty>* <ptrval>{, <ty> <idx>}* How is the "<result>" represented? Best,

Hi all, I am experimenting to run a pass inherited from CallGraphSCCPass. In the pass, I iterate all functions in a SCC. In each iteration, I access all arguments of a function in the following way: Function::arg_iterator PI = fun->arg_begin(), PE = fun->arg_end(); ... I have no trouble with building. However, I am troubled with "segmentation fault" when I run the pass

Hey, Considering the following instruction: %20 = load %struct.Node** getelementptr inbounds (%struct.Node* @head, i32 0, i32 0), align 16 ; <%struct.Node*> [#uses=1] What is the type of the first operand of the instruction (i.e., getOperand(0))? I thought the operand is a "GetElementPtr" instruction, however, the predicate "isa<Instruction>()" over

Guess I have found some clues. Some necessary libraries have to be loaded while trying to generate native code or do interpretation. Then another question emerges: Is there a way to determine the necessary libraries in need? And where to locate these necessary libraries? Xiaolong > Hi All, > > I have a program that uses C++ STL a lot. To have the source code for > STL functions, I

Xiaolong Tang wrote: > First, how does LLVM handle the "new statement" of C++? Could any one > give me any hint? > It doesn't. Handling C++'s new expression (not statement) is up to the compiler frontend. Clang handles it by emitting a call to the runtime-provided operator new function (which is probably implemented in terms of malloc) followed by a constructor call,