similar to: [LLVMdev] Segmentation Fault of BasicCallGraph?

Shuying Liang wrote: > Hi, > > I did a little experiment, basically to extract implemented CallGraph > to be a "new" pass with different registered name, and run the "new" > pass, but the result always gives out Segmentation Fault... I am > probably missing > sth? > > Implemented another new class, > class BasicCallGraph2 : public ModulePass,

The current BasicCallGraph will miss call sites like this: %tmp86 = call i8* (...)* bitcast (i8* ()* @find_ispell to i8* (...)*)( ) ; <i8*> [#uses=1] Here the direct user of @find_ispell is a ConstantExpr. I added several lines of code to address this case. Below is the output of command: svn diff lib/Analysis/IPA/CallGraph.cpp Attached is LLVM asm files with such function calls.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Zhongxing Xu wrote: > The current BasicCallGraph will miss call sites like this: > %tmp86 = call i8* (...)* bitcast (i8* ()* @find_ispell to i8* (...)*)( ) > ; <i8*> [#uses=1] > > Here the direct user of @find_ispell is a ConstantExpr. > I added several lines of code to address this case. > Below is the output of command: svn diff

I am doing inter-procedural static analysis, so I need to do DFS of call graph. llvm-gcc sometimes generates this kind of call instruction, which cause the call graph to be incomplete. But thanks for your information, instcombine really solves the problem. On 7/17/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Zhongxing Xu wrote: > > The current

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Zhongxing Xu wrote: > I am doing inter-procedural static analysis, so I need to do DFS of call > graph. llvm-gcc sometimes generates this kind of call instruction, which > cause the call graph to be incomplete. > > But thanks for your information, instcombine really solves the problem. Happy to help. You'll probably find that other optimizations help as

> Happy to help. You'll probably find that other optimizations help as > well, such as simplifycfg (which deletes dead blocks). Thank you. I am using it. Depending on what > you are doing, using the LLVM IR can be tricky for this sort of stuff > because it can get too far from the source level. > Yes, it is really a problem. Now I am using my eyes to map the LLVM IR back

The follwing is a snippet of code to find some indirect calls in a module, which I learned from TopDownClosure.cpp: void FPS::repairCallGraph(Module &M) { CompleteBUDataStructures &DS = getAnalysis<CompleteBUDataStructures>(); for (Module::iterator f = M.begin(); f != M.end(); ++f ) { if( f->isExternal() ) continue; for (Function::iterator I = f->begin(); I !=

Hi, I want to insert a function with a void type parameter, for example: int foo(void); OI declared fcall2 = M.getOrInsertFunction("foo", IntegerType::get(M.getContext(), 32), Type::getVoidTy(M.getContext())); then the question is how to get the void type value to make the CallInst inserted sucessfully? (what should be ********) CallInst::Create(fcall2, ******,

Hi, sivart Thanks for pointing it out. I used it, and it works. Thank you again. BTW, for any later reference, the function prototype declaration with no arguments is not what I wrote: fcall2 = M.getOrInsertFunction("foo", IntegerType::get(M.getContext(), 32), Type::getVoidTy(M.getContext())); INSTEAD, I changed to : fcall2 = M.getOrInsertFunction("foo",

Hi Shuying, You will find in the documentation that amongst the overloaded CallInst::Create()'s there is one that takes no function arguments: static CallInst* llvm::CallInst::Create ( Value * F, const Twine & NameStr, BasicBlock * InsertAtEnd); Regards On 23/11/2010, at 11:20 AM, Shuying Liang wrote: > Hi, I want to insert a function with a void type parameter, > for example:

Hello all, It's been a month since my previous email on the topic, and since then I've done some initial work on porting the coroutines passes to the new pass manager. In total there are 6 patches -- that's a lot to review, so allow me to introduce the changes being made in each of them. # What's finished In these first 6 patches, I focused on lowering coroutine intrinsics

Hi all, I have been trying to build a loop nesting analysis which works interprocedurally. In order to find the functions called inside a given loop, I am traversing the Instructions into the BasicBlock's that conform a Loop, and applying the code that CallGraph construction uses: ------ extract from CallGraph.cpp : 144 // Look for calls by this function. for (Function::iterator BB =

On Mar 25, 2010, at 8:18 AM, John Criswell wrote: > Dear All, > > I'm currently upgrading SAFECode to the LLVM 2.7 API. I'm getting some > strange errors in LLVM Passes that use analysis groups and multiple > inheritance. Hey John, This is almost certainly due to the "eliminate rtti" work. You probably need to implement

On Monday 22 May 2006 22:22, Andrew Lenharth wrote: > On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 15:33 +0800, 澶忎竴姘� wrote: > > But my code does not always works: if the arguments are not pointer, > > CompleteBUDataStructures not records it. So, if you want to find all indirect > > calls, you maybe have to repair CompleteBUDataStructures. :) > > Not surprising, CBU is trying to do something

On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 13:32 +0800, Nai Xia wrote: > On Monday 22 May 2006 22:22, Andrew Lenharth wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 15:33 +0800, 澶忎竴姘� wrote: > > > But my code does not always works: if the arguments are not pointer, > > > CompleteBUDataStructures not records it. So, if you want to find all indirect > > > calls, you maybe have to repair

Dear All, I'm currently upgrading SAFECode to the LLVM 2.7 API. I'm getting some strange errors in LLVM Passes that use analysis groups and multiple inheritance. To create analysis groups in LLVM 2.6, I would first create a base class for the analysis group and then another class that inherited from both ModulePass and the analysis group base class. That worked in LLVM 2.6, but

Михаил wrote: > It is ModulePass with AnalysisUsage of CallGraph Ah, then you'll need to update the CallGraph first. Use "CG.removeFunctionFromModule(F);" before deleting it. Nick > Yours sincerely, > Kadysev Mikhail > > 22.04.2012, в 5:20, Nick Lewycky написал(а): > >> Михаил wrote: >>> Thanks, but I replaceAllUsesWith() - works well, but I still

Dear Members, I have a question about using R2WinBUGS to obtain the WinBUGS results. By default, when R2WinBUGS returns summary stats, I got mean, sd, 2.5%, 25%, median, 75% and 97.5%. Could anyone tell me how to modify the code to obtain 5% and 95% summary results? Many thanks Alice _________________________________________________________________ [[elided Hotmail spam]]

It is ModulePass with AnalysisUsage of CallGraph Yours sincerely, Kadysev Mikhail 22.04.2012, в 5:20, Nick Lewycky написал(а): > Михаил wrote: >> Thanks, but I replaceAllUsesWith() - works well, but I still get bug in >> eraseFromParent(): >> >> While deleting: i32 (%class.B*, i32)* %_ZN1B1xEi >> An asserting value handle still pointed to this value! >>

On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 15:33 +0800, 夏一民 wrote: > But my code does not always works: if the arguments are not pointer, > CompleteBUDataStructures not records it. So, if you want to find all indirect > calls, you maybe have to repair CompleteBUDataStructures. :) Not surprising, CBU is trying to do something entirely different that what you are. > If you do not use BUDataStructures, you