similar to: [LLVMdev] the generation of getelementptr 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'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

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 --------------

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]

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

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>

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

Thanks John, I modify my code to like this: bool XXX::ModulePass(Module &M){ .... LoopInfo &li = getAnalysis<LoopInfo>(fi); .... } Here fi is a Function* pointing to main(). Now when I run the pass, another error shows up: AnalysisType& llvm::Pass::getAnalysisID(const llvm::PassInfo*, llvm::Function&) [with AnalysisType = llvm::LoopInfo]: Assertion `ResultPass

On 3/3/11 3:09 PM, Wenbin Zhang wrote: > Hi all, > I tried to have a LoopInfo object in a function pass, add > addRequired<LoopInfo> in getAnalysisUsage, and then use > getAnalysis<LoopInfo> in runOnFunction(). It worked OK. > Now I want to have a module pass to traverse the functions, and > similarly I want to have to loop information of the functions. When I >

Hi all, I just checked in a series of patches that makes some substantial changes to the LLVM getelementptr instruction. In particular, in LLVM 1.2 and earlier, the getelementptr instruction required index operands for structure types to be 'ubyte' constants and index operands for sequential types to be 'long' values. This had several problems, most notably that it was

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

Hi all, I tried to have a LoopInfo object in a function pass, add addRequired<LoopInfo> in getAnalysisUsage, and then use getAnalysis<LoopInfo> in runOnFunction(). It worked OK. Now I want to have a module pass to traverse the functions, and similarly I want to have to loop information of the functions. When I did the above in runOnModule, and run the pass, the following error popped

Hi Chris, Congrats on getting this taken care of finally. I know its something you've wanted to do since 1.0. I have one question. How does LLVM disambiguate between a uint used for a structure and a uint used for an array? My assumption is that LLVM is aware of the type of the thing being indexed all the way through the dereference so it doesn't really matter what index type is being

Hi all, Hopefully, I'm sending this to the right place... Can someone guide me on changing the Maildir messages files back to the single file format I used to have instead of the dovecot.index /cur /tmp /new format my newer server currently has. I'm running dovecot v1.2.9 postfix v2.7 on Ubuntu v10.4

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*

Any insight into the behavior of "by" in the following case would be appreciated. There is a note in the help details for "by" about documenting behavior since v2.7 but I don't entirely understand what it is saying. I'm using R2.7.2 Windows. I'm interested if the following behavior was a change or whether it has always worked this way. I looked at

Patrick Simmons <simmon12 at illinois.edu> writes: [snip] > Is there any way I can do this? If not, is there any way for me to > accomplish what I want here? http://www.llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#i_getelementptr

> so i confess i'm still not clear on what the first index into > getelementptr is all about. I'm sure you're not the only one. :) This is one of the wierdest aspects of LLVM to the unaccustomed. > it makes perfect sense for an example like > getelementptr %mystruct * %reg100 > to just return a %mystruct * equivalent to %reg100. > > it does *not* make sense to

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Carl Friedrich Bolz wrote: > I'm having problems figuring out how to do variable sized structs in LLVM > (which are neccessary for PyPy's LLVM backend, on which I'm working). I'm > trying to do the equivalent of ... > in LLVM, where the items array can be arbitrarily long. I guess that the > struct definition should be something like: >