similar to: [LLVMdev] MachineBasicBlock insertion

Hi all, I am still stumped on the same bug. Did anyone try to insert MachineBasicBlock into a MachineFunction? Any advice will be appreciated. Thanks a lot in advance. ~Bin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks a lot Jeff. I changed the setNumber function call to

Since the getelementptrs were implicitly generated by the CreateStore/Load I'm not sure how to get access to them. So I hacked the assignment to be done thrice: once using a manual decomposition into two GEPs and stores, once using the "big" CreateStore, once via the setGlobal function, printing addresses and memory contents at each point to the degree that I have access to them.

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Nikodemus Siivola < nikodemus at random-state.net> wrote: > Uh. Turns out that if I hide the pointer to @foo from LLVM by passing it > through an opaque identity function ... then everything works fine. > > Is this a bug in LLVM or is there some magic involving globals I'm > misunderstanding? > This looks like a bug in the handling of

That's useful to know that the static compilation code path works. Furthermore, as expected from that: 52: c7 05 04 00 00 00 d5 00 00 00 movl $213, 4 00000054: IMAGE_REL_I386_DIR32 _foo It looks like the offset `4` of the second field of your struct is correct in the object file, so this does seem to be a problem in the JIT-specific linking/loading.

My code was hinky, but only in the sense that I was accidentally duplicating the definition variable in the module where the function was. With only the declaration in the second module loading the bitcode reproduces the issue. Managed an lli reproduction: $ cat jit-0.ll target datalayout = "e-m:x-p:32:32-i64:64-f80:32-n8:16:32-a:0:32-S32" target triple =

Hi, I'm currently trying to modify LLVM to include runtime checks into X86 binaries. I've looked into some of the possibilities during the phases happening in LLVM and have the impression that inserting runtime checks during selection would be great, since lots of optimizations are already done and I can work directly with X86 instructions. I've read through the documentation for

Dear Mr. Cheng: Thank you for kind information. Can you tell me in more detail about that? For example, I am trying to implement 'demultiplex' instruction as follows: demultiplex <multiplexid,choose,branch0id,branch1id,…,otherwisebranchid> In this case, the number of branch#id is not definite. It can be 1, 2, 3...or any number. My question was about this. I am still not sure how

I have a MachineFunctionPass plugged into llc during LLVMTargetMachine::addPreRegAlloc. In this Pass I need to extend calls (i. e. CALL32m, CALL32r) iff they call function within the program. CALL32m has, I think, ten different possibilities for the four operands giving the target address. At the moment I have excluded calls that give the displacement as GlobalAddress or JumpTableIndex

Consider this example: --- ex.ll --- declare void @bar() ; Function Attrs: nounwind optsize define void @main() { entry: %hin = alloca [256 x i32], align 4 %xin = alloca [256 x i32], align 4 call void @bar() ret void } ------------- Freshly built llc: llc -O2 -march=x86 < ex.ll -print-before-all # *** IR Dump Before Prologue/Epilogue Insertion & Frame Finalization ***: #

The code has changed a lot over the years. Looks like at some point of time the assumption was broken. calculateCallsInformation() may have eliminated the pseudo set up instructions already. // If call frames are not being included as part of the stack frame, and

Emitting calls to these functions (written in an .ll file linked in) works fine, and does the right thing. %Any = type { i8*, i32 } define dllexport void @setGlobal(%Any* %ptr, %Any %value) { store %Any %value, %Any* %ptr ret void } define dllexport %Any @getGlobal(%Any* %ptr) { %val = load %Any, %Any* %ptr ret %Any %val } Trying to replace the setGlobal call with what should be

Thanks, I'll look into that. Still, the case where the function does not call anything remains---in such a situation there are no ADJCALLSTACK pseudos, so regardless of what that function you pointed at does, there won't be any target-independent information about the SP adjustment by the time the frame index elimination runs. Would it make sense to have ADJCALLSTACK pseudos every

Dear guys, I am in need of more of your help. I'm implementing a register allocator, and I am having problems to make it produce correct code. Consider this program here: int main(int argc, char ** argv) { int i, j, sum; i = argv[0][0]; j = argv[0][1]; sum = (i + j) * j; printf("Sum = %d\n", sum); } that maps to this llvm bytecode: entry (0xa785590, LLVM

I sent a long message yesterday describing a problem I thought had to do with the JIT stubs. After further investigating, the problem seems to be in the code generation. The following basic block seems to have an error in it's code generation: __exp.exit: ; preds = %codeRepl258, %__exp_bb_bb.exit phi double [ 1.000000e+00, %codeRepl258 ], [ %.reload.reload.i,

I'm having an issue with the Stubs used by the JIT Compiler. I'm not sure if it's a bug or if I'm doing something incorrectly. I've got a long complicated function with the following basic blocks at the end of it (The complete .ll file is attached): falseBlock: ; preds = %__exp.exit340 ret int 617 codeRepl: ; preds = %__exp.exit340

Hi all, I am writing a pass subclassing the MachineFunctionPass and doing the instrumentation in runOnMachineFunction(). But I do not know how to insert a function call. In my work, I write a special function for a program to be compiled and I need to insert this function after certain instructions whose destination register is esp. In X86InstrInfo.cpp, there are two kinds of call may be

Hi, I'm having some trouble wirting an instruction in the X86 backend. I made a new intrinsic and I wrote a custom inserter for my intrinsic in the X86 backend. Everything works fine, except for one instruction that I can't find how to write. I want to add this instruction in one of my machine basic block: mov [rdi], 0 How can I achieve that with the LLVM api? I tried several

Hello, In llc, we have this flag (output of command --help | grep relax): -mc-relax-all - When used with filetype=obj, relax all fixups in the emitted object file It also appears in clang: -mrelax-all (integrated-as) Relax all machine instructions I'd like to discuss the naming and semantics of this flag, because ISTM at least the name is misleading. If I understand

On Jul 8, 2009, at 10:16 AM, Artjom Kochtchi wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm currently trying to modify LLVM to include runtime checks into X86 > binaries. I've looked into some of the possibilities during the phases > happening in LLVM and have the impression that inserting runtime > checks > during selection would be great, since lots of optimizations are > already

I have an llvm ir, which generates the following machine code using llc (llvm 3.0 on win32) after # *** IR Dump After X86 DAG->DAG Instruction Selection ***: The first three lines and the last two lines alone together are used to compute "sin" for some double number. - line 1: move the stack pointer down 8 - line 2: copy the updated stack pointer to a base register - line 3: copy a