similar to: [LLVMdev] instruction names

I am writing a transformation that needs to add a call to a function F() at the beginning of main() with the addresses of argc and argv as parameters to F(). However, the bytecode file I'm transforming has not allocated space on the stack for argc and argv. So, I developed my transformation to change main() from: ----- int main(int %argc, sbyte** %argv){ entry: ... // some use of

After looking at this problem longer, I believe that there is something wrong with the disassembler. When I run my transformation and then disassemble the output, I get bytecode that looks like: ----- int %main(int %argc, sbyte** %argv) { entry: alloca int ; <int*>:0 [#uses=3] alloca sbyte** ; <sbyte***>:0 [#uses=3] store int %argc,

I am trying to use LLVM as a source to source C compiler. I use llvm-gcc to convert file.c->file.bc. Then I use opt to run my own compiler passes to convert file.bc->file.opt.bc. Then I use llc to convert file.opt.bc->file.opt.c. Now, I want to use normal gcc to compile file.opt.c into an executable. However, I'm getting the following errors: test.opt.c:89: warning:

Can I specify passes that I want run directly to llvm-gcc? I don't want all of -O3, for example. I tried llvm-gcc -raiseallocs ..., but that didn't work. I also tried running cc1 directly and it didn't take -raiseallocs as a parameter either. Duncan Sands wrote: > On Tuesday 28 April 2009 04:02:47 am Ryan M. Lefever wrote: >> I assume that when -O3 (or O2 or O1) is

I assume that when -O3 (or O2 or O1) is passed to llvm-gcc, then it utilizes opt. How do I determine what passes opt runs? How do I determine what external tools (and arguments) llvm-gcc is invoking? Regards, Ryan

Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I am trying to use LLVM as a source to source C compiler. I use > llvm-gcc to convert file.c->file.bc. Then I use opt to run my own > compiler passes to convert file.bc->file.opt.bc. Then I use llc to > convert file.opt.bc->file.opt.c. Now, I want to use normal gcc to > compile file.opt.c into an executable. However, I'm getting the

I need to create a cast instruction that casts an sbyte* to another pointer type. Previously I was using the CastInst::createInferredCast() function to do that; however, that function has been removed. Which of the create() functions from CastInst should I use to do that? It seems like the obdvious answer should be createPointerCast(). However, the documentation for createPointerCast

What is the difference between a CallInst and an InvokeInst in LLVM? Is an InvokeInst a CallInst that can throw an exception? Thanks, Ryan

I have a bitcode file Y that has a symbol __isoc99_fscanf in it. When I disassemble the bitcode, the symbol is written as "\01__isoc99_fscanf". I am wondering where this symbol is coming from? I grep'ed throughout /usr on my machine for both names, and I only found __isoc99_fscanf, without the special character in front. Regardless of where the symbol is coming from, I am

Most LLVM IR instructions have a result field, according to the Language Reference. I want to know, for all LLVM Instructions, is there an easy and consistent way to know if the current Inst has a result field? And if yes, what is the best way to obtain it? E.g.: <result> = add<ty> <op1>,<op2> /; yields {ty}:result / All ADD instruction will have a

"Ryan M. Lefever" <lefever at illinois.edu> writes: > Thank you. That is exactly what I want. Is there any more detailed > documentation on how to use metadata? I guess that clang is using metadata for debug info so looking at its code can be useful. And there is this document explaining how LLVM implements debug information:

Hi Chuck, > Most LLVM IR instructions have a result field, according to the Language Reference. > > I want to know, for all LLVM Instructions, is there an easy and consistent way > to know if the current Inst has a result field? > And if yes, what is the best way to obtain it? the instruction is the result! So everywhere you though you needed to use Instruction->getResult(),

Is a PR a bug report on the bugzilla database? I am also running bugpoint to see if that yields anything. Reid Spencer wrote: > Hi Ryan, > > On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 13:34 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > >>I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: >> >>llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm >> >>However, I am getting the

I have some code I am compiling with LLVM, and some functions in the code are begin declared as variable argument functions with no named arguments when the functions have known types. For example, the following C code uint64_t getStartTime(); is getting compiled to declare i64 @getStartTime(...) in bitcode. Why would this happen? Regards, Ryan

I don't mean to be a pain, but I was thinking about this a bit more. Does gcc ignore the const keyword? If not, why has LLVM chosen to deviate from gcc with respect to the const keyword? If so, then why do we bother using const in LLVM API code? I'm just curious and wanted to understand the thinking behind not preserving const. Thanks, Ryan Chris Lattner wrote: > This property

On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 14:27 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > Is a PR a bug report on the bugzilla database? Yes, so named because of the URL translation. I.e. http://llvm.org/PR123 takes you to bugzilla bug 123. PR == Problem Report. > I am also running > bugpoint to see if that yields anything. Okay, good. That might turn up something useful. If you suspect its a bug, please file

Does llvm-gcc support the -fPIC option? I am using LLVM on both 32 bit linux and 64 bit linux, if that matters. Regards, Ryan -- Ryan M. Lefever [http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~lefever/index.html]

I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm However, I am getting the following assertion failure in llc. The bytecode has been processed with opt, it passes opt bytecode verification. I'm not too familiar with backend code generation. Does anyone have any insight in to what the problem might be or how to go about

What versions of llvm and llvm-poolalloc should I check out of cvs, in order to use DSA? In a previous post John Criswell suggested checking llvm and llvm-poolalloc out of cvs using the -r release_19 flag. However, there were several post later that said that changes should not be made to the release_19 branch. At any rate, I've not seen any update on which versions of llvm and

Hi Ryan, On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 13:34 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: > > llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm > > However, I am getting the following assertion failure in llc. The > bytecode has been processed with opt, it passes opt bytecode > verification. I'm not too familiar with backend