similar to: [LLVMdev] how to have a Operator reference from an Instruction?

Wenbin Zhang wrote: > I'll try the trunk, as well as check my code again. If indeed it's not > fixed, I'll try to post a triggering case here. > Thanks for the advice~ > Did you run the -mergereturn pass (it might also be called UnifyExitNodes in the source code)? This is the pass that ensures that each function has exactly one basic block that returns control to the

----- Original Message ----- From: "John Criswell" <criswell at illinois.edu> To: "Wenbin Zhang" <zhangwen at cse.ohio-state.edu> Cc: <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] how to check whether from basicblock A we can go to basicblock B within the same function? > Wenbin Zhang wrote: >> Dear all,

I'm attempting to instrument virtual function calls in my code. After each virtual call I'm calling my own registerMethod function, with an integer marking the location of the call and a pointer to the function that was called. However, and this is where I get confused, the function pointer doesn't match any of the functions in my module. I'd hoped to call

I'll try the trunk, as well as check my code again. If indeed it's not fixed, I'll try to post a triggering case here. Thanks for the advice~ Best, --Wenbin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tobias Grosser" <grosser at fim.uni-passau.de> To: "Wenbin Zhang" <zhangwen at cse.ohio-state.edu> Cc: <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Thursday, August

Wenbin Zhang wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Criswell" <criswell at illinois.edu> > To: "Wenbin Zhang" <zhangwen at cse.ohio-state.edu> > Cc: <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 5:09 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] how to check whether from basicblock A we can go to > basicblock B within the same

When compiling a release version on Linux with GCC 3.4.4, I get the following warnings repeated multiple times when linking LLVMCore.o: /usr/bin/ld: `.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNK4llvm11Instruction13getOpcodeNameEv' referenced in section `.gnu.linkonce.r._ZNK4llvm11Instruction13getOpcodeNameEv' of /proj/llvm/build/lib/VMCore/Release/Instruction.o: defined in discarded section

Andy, Here is the left circular shift operator patch. I apologize to the reviewer in advance. The patch has a good bit of fine detail. Any comments/criticisms? Some caveats... 1) This is just the bare minimum needed to make the left circular shift operator work (e.g. no instruction combining). 2) I tried my best to select operator names in the existing style; please feel free to change them as

Wenbin Zhang wrote: > Dear all, > Is there a way to check whether we can go from A to B within a > function when I'm writing a pass? I assume you are asking whether control flow can pass from BasicBlock A to BasicBlock B. In that case, yes: all you need to do is look at the terminator instruction of BasicBlock A and see if it can branch to BasicBlock B. There's a new indirect

Hi! currently instcombine does not detect constant diagonal matrix times vector, for example a.xx * [2 0] + a.yy * [0 3] can be optimized to a * [2 3] I have implemented this for float. I know that this assumes x * 0 = 0 which is not ieee compliant but i post it here in case it is interesting for someone. on my wish list there is still an option for target independent optimizations to have x

On 08/05/2010 06:46 AM, Wenbin Zhang wrote: > Hi all, > I'm using postDominatorTree to do some program analysis. My code works > well for small tests, but when I run it on real applications, the > following error occurs: > /Inorder PostDominator Tree: DFSNumbers invalid: 0 slow queries. > [1] <<exit node>> {0,21} > [2] %bb1 {1,2} > [2] %bb {3,4} > [2]

Dear all, Is there a way to check whether we can go from A to B within a function when I'm writing a pass? Thanks. Best, --Wenbin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100827/8cf26762/attachment.html>

Hi all, I'm new to llvm and klee. Now I'm trying to build up coreutil with klee. Following the steps online (http://klee.llvm.org/TestingCoreutils.html), I went to step 3 and stuck. When I try to run: klee --libc=uclibc --posix-runtime ./cat.bc -version Error occurred like: klee: error: Cannot find linker input '/lib/libc.a' klee: ModuleUtil.cpp:42: llvm::Module*

Hi John, Thank you so much for the valuable answer! :) However, i have one tough issue that i need to solve, in my pass : let's say here %s = add %a, %b I need to check if the value of %a or %b is 2 or 4 and then apply a transformation to the other operand accordingly, for example if the value of %a = 2 the i'll multiply %b by 2 in my transform pass. I'm having a hard time

Hi all, Can we map an IR instruction to the correlated source code? Or, if I want to recognize an assignment statement in the source code, can we quickly find all the related IR instructions according to a 'store'? E.g., i = j +k + m[5] in IR will have some loads and some getelementptrs. Can we define which IRs are related to this assignment? Thanks. Regards, --Wenbin --------------

Hi all, I'm reading the language reference of LLVM here: http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#i_getelementptr In the first example, it shows that the generated IR is supposed to be something like: %reg = getelementptr %ST* %s, i32 1, i32 2, i32 1, i32 5, i32 13 But when I copied the code and compile it myself (using v2.7), I got five getelementptr instructions, which are just like the equivalent

On Feb 8, 2009, at 8:58 AM, Dan Gohman wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Would it be better to split add into multiple opcodes instead of using > SubclassData bits? No, I don't think so. The big difference here is that (like type) "opcode" never changes for an instruction once it is created. I expect that optimizations would want to play with these (e.g. convert them to

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 7:37 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 2:28 PM Cameron McInally <cameron.mcinally at nyu.edu> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:39 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I have 1 concern about adding an explicit fneg op to IR: >>>

On Jun 2, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Griffin Wright wrote: > > Hello all: > > I apologize for what I imagine is a rather silly question, but I'm still > somewhat new to LLVM and am stuck. I am reworking some code that was > originally in the backend involving MachineInstructions and > MachineOperands, and I now need for it to function as an LLVM IR pass, > using just

On Oct 28, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Tyler Hardin <tghardin1 at catamount.wcu.edu> wrote: > See the source here: https://github.com/earl/llvm-mirror/blob/master/lib/Target/X86/InstPrinter/X86IntelInstPrinter.cpp. It looks like getRegisterName might do what you want, but I don't know where it's coming from. (Whether it's a function or a member of a super class. Hopefully, if it's

I think this assertion failure may be caused by the getAnalysisUsage(). Mine is like the following: class myclass : public ModulePass{ ... virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<LoopInfo>(); } ... } Is it enough? Thanks! Best, --Wenbin ----- Original Message ----- From: Wenbin Zhang To: John Criswell Cc: llvmdev at