similar to: [LLVMdev] redundant checking of terminator in Verifier?

Hi LLVM, In lib/VMCare/Verifier.cpp::visitInstruction, we have such code 1287 // Check that the return value of the instruction is either void or a legal 1288 // value type. 1289 Assert1(I.getType() == Type::getVoidTy(I.getContext()) || 1290 I.getType()->isFirstClassType() 1291 || ((isa<CallInst>(I) || isa<InvokeInst>(I)) 1292 &&

Hello everyone, I have a segmentation fault while running an LLVM pass. I need to use BBterminators array outside the iterating "for" loop for basic blocks. It seems that LLVM does not protect the addresses ( note: TerminatorInst *BasicBlock::getTerminator() ) when iterating through the loop, so I need to keep in BBterminators "Instruction" type elements, not

Hi I have checked all blocks, each block have a Terminator instruction and each blocks belongs to a function. I'm really confused. I guess the problem is caused by the removal of the Loop,The code is as follows: * //every block to header (except the ones in the loop), will now redirect to newblock for (pred_iterator PI = pred_begin(header); PI != pred_end(header); ++PI) {

On 12/17/12 10:34 AM, Alexandru Ionut Diaconescu wrote: > Hello, > > I am a beginner of LLVM. I am trying to move among the instructions of > a BasicBlock and I cannot. In this particular example, I try to get > the previous instruction of the end instruction. I am trying 2 methods: > > > > 1. I have the following sequence of code: > > bool

Hi, All I want to implement DSWP Which is used for parallelization of loops. For this purpose, the loop was replaced with a new basic block in main function. And new functions were created and basic blocks of Loop assigned to them.I have checked blocks and branches for Succ and Pred relation and I have not found any problems. However I get the following error: * **opt:

PS: I works when I use Instruction* prev = current->getPrevNode(); But then I have runtime error Stack dump that is very frequent... On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:20 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 12/17/12 10:34 AM, Alexandru Ionut Diaconescu wrote: > > Hello, > > I am a beginner of LLVM. I am trying to move among the instructions of a >

Hello, I modified the PathProfiling.cpp and run opt -inesrt-path-profiling. it works correctly ,but after path-profile is complete in Verifier::visitTerminatorInst it prints "Terminator found in the middle of a basic block!" . error is I added two basic blocks after return basic block and return has br label %newprint when printed in pathprofile module but in

Hello, I am a beginner of LLVM. I am trying to move among the instructions of a BasicBlock and I cannot. In this particular example, I try to get the previous instruction of the end instruction. I am trying 2 methods: 1. I have the following sequence of code: bool patternDC::runOnBasicBlock(BasicBlock &BB) { ... if (BB.getTerminator()) { Instruction* current =

Hi, I'm curious how it would affect the getTerminator() method of a basic block? I.e., how would one find the terminating instruction in that case? By iterating over all of them or ...? Cheers, Alex. > On 17. May 2018, at 11:03, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Going to keep this RFC short and to the point: > > TerminatorInst

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

Hi, the docs for InstVisitor say that if RetType != void, one has to override visitInstruction. What is the reason for that? It's valid to define visitInstruction like that: RetTy visitInstruction(Instruction &I) { return RetTy(); } so assuming RetTy has a sensible default constructor, user won't need to override visitInstruction. Note that the above will work when RetTy ==

Hi Andreas, Thanks for breaking things up. I applied two pieces of this patch in separate no-functionality-change commits, here: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=75623 and here: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=75625 I merged in my changes to your patch, which results in the attached patch. There may be some missed merge errors. The main

Are there any known issues with the ResolvedUndefsIn in 2.7? We've hit this particular stack a couple times now in the JIT. I've copied the failing bitcode to disk and doesn't crash opt or llc. It doesn't repro easily in the JIT either, but the stack is always the same... hoping it's a known issue. Thanks! TerminatorInst *TI = BB->getTerminator(); >>>>if

I actually need this feature quite badly in my untyped language compiler: since I support first-class functions, I've made the types of all functions a standard vararg (so I can box them). The implementation crashes when I try to read out the value of gc.result. Hints as to what might be wrong? Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> ---

On May 8, 2009, at 4:02 PM, Nick Johnson wrote: > I want to insert a conditional branch in the middle of a basic block. > To that end, I am doing these steps: > > (1) Split the basic block: > bb->splitBasicBlock() > > (2) Remove the old terminator: > succ->removePredecessor(bb) > bb->getTerminator()->getParent() Assuming that the new block will still be a

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':

Hi, I want to insert a conditional branch in the middle of a basic block. To that end, I am doing these steps: (1) Split the basic block: bb->splitBasicBlock() (2) Remove the old terminator: succ->removePredecessor(bb) bb->getTerminator()->getParent() (3) Adding a new terminator: BranchInst::Create(ifTrue, ifFalse, cnd, "", bb); That seems to work, but later passes

In the following IR module: – define i8 @foo() #0 { entry: %call0 = call i8 @bar() ret i8 %call0 } declare i8 @bar() #1 – @bar() gets marked as its own user in top-of-tree LLVM. I patched the Verifier to check it (but didn’t commit the patch): – Index: lib/IR/Verifier.cpp =================================================================== --- lib/IR/Verifier.cpp (revision 203468) +++

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

Going to keep this RFC short and to the point: TerminatorInst doesn't pull its weight in the type system. There is essentially a single relevant API -- iterating successors. There is no other interesting aspect shared -- the interface itself just dispatches to specific instructions to be implemented. On the flip side, CallInst and InvokeInst have *massive* amounts of code shared and struggle