similar to: [LLVMdev] Missing :CreateFNeg() in NoFolder.h

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Frits van Bommel <fvbommel at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:26 PM, BernardH > <gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel at bernard-hugueney.org> wrote: >> Should I consider NoFolder unsupported ? > > Seeing as it's completely broken (it doesn't insert the created > instructions into the relevant basic block)

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:26 PM, BernardH <gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel at bernard-hugueney.org> wrote: > Should I consider NoFolder unsupported ? Seeing as it's completely broken (it doesn't insert the created instructions into the relevant basic block) that's probably best... :( (It's also missing most of the casting operations, by the way)

Hi all, while I was playing a little bit with IRBuilder I ended up with something like this when included NoFolder.h /work/llvm/include/llvm/User.h: In member function ‘llvm::Value* llvm::NoFolder::CreateExtractElement(llvm::Constant*, llvm::Constant*) const’: /work/llvm/include/llvm/User.h:48: error: ‘static void* llvm::User::operator new(size_t)’ is private

IRBuilder is a templated class, and one of the template arguments is the constant folder to use. By default it uses the ConstantFolder class which does target-independant constant folding. If you want to disable constant folding you can specify the NoFolder class instead, i.e. declare the builder as follows: IRBuilder<true, llvm::NoFolder> builder(body) On 26 Nov 2013, at 19:23, Daniel

Hello, Thanks for the patch. I applied it on trunk. I suspect it's too late for 2.6 though. Dan On Sep 28, 2009, at 1:38 PM, KS Sreeram wrote: > Hi folks, > > The llvm c-api contains LLVMBuildNeg but not LLVMBuildFNeg. I've > attached a simple patch which adds LLVMBuildFNeg. > > I know it's a little late, but it'll be great if this can be added > for

Hi folks, The llvm c-api contains LLVMBuildNeg but not LLVMBuildFNeg. I've attached a simple patch which adds LLVMBuildFNeg. I know it's a little late, but it'll be great if this can be added for the 2.6 release. I'm asking because I'd like to add support for FNeg in llvm-py too, and it'll be hard to do that if llvm 2.6 doesn't have it. Regards KS Sreeram

Hi. Thanks. I changed the code but the problem exists. This is my new code which is again very simple: ... bool runOnFunction(Function &F) override { vector<Instruction *> dels; dels.clear(); for (inst_iterator It = inst_begin(&F), Ie = inst_end(&F); It != Ie;) { Instruction *I = &*(It++); if (auto* op = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(I)) { IRBuilder<NoFolder>

Hello, using the LLVM API, I've build one very simple function that adds two ConstantInts and returns the result. I noticed that, when I emit IR code, it is optimized to a simple "ret i16 42" when I add 40 and 2. I'd like to see the operations that are necessary to compute the result, though. Can I somehow disable this optimization in the pass, leading to more verbose IR code?

LLVM is built in Release mode. The version is 6.0.0. I think that a similar code worked on verison 3.9.0. It is probably a null pointer dereference occurring in eraseFromParent(). I checked and reconfirmed that the instruction had no uses. Perhaps I should rebuild LLVM. Thanks. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:03 PM, mayuyu.io <admin at mayuyu.io> wrote: > Hmmmm that’s strange. Do you get an

Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> writes: > >> Óscar Fuentes wrote: >>> The following message is a courtesy copy of an article >>> that has been posted to gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel as well. >>> >>> Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> writes: >>> >>>> This is x86_64. I have a problem where an

I want to create an add instruction that takes two constant operands at the LLVM IR level. I use the IRBuilder class, but nothing happens. Here is part of the runOnFunction() method of my function pass: ... LLVMContext &Context = F.getContext(); IRBuilder<> builder(&Instruction); Value *Lef = ConstantInt::get(Type::getInt32Ty(Context), 4); Value *Rig =

[please keep discussion on-list. thanks] "Cloud Strife" <geforce8800 at gmail.com> writes: > Thank you very much for your help. Now this problem has been solved and I > have got a workable project. > > I am trying the example in the llvm\docs\tutorial\LangImpl4.html > . However, after I put the whole source code into my customized project, > there is an error

Are you calling llvm_shutdown() at the end of your program? You should. valgrind reports "possible" leaks when it finds a pointer pointing inside a memory block (as opposed to at the first byte), and LLVM uses those a lot. llvm_shutdown() will free a lot of that memory, including the LLVMContext, which should remove any false leaks you might be seeing. On the other hand, the

Hi edA-qa mort-ora-y, On 02/11/12 10:20, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > I'm having trouble figuring out what the error "Instruction does not > dominate all uses!" means. I'm trying to construct a call to a function > with two parameters. The printed IR, with error, looks like this: > > define i32 @add(i32, i32) { > EntryBlock: > %2 = add i32 %0, %1 >

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 1/18/17 3:55 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Mikhail Zolotukhin > <mzolotukhin at apple.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Continuing recent efforts in understanding compile time slowdowns, I looked at some historical data: I picked one test and tried to pin-point commits that affected its compile-time. The data I have is not 100%

Ah but how did you compile the clang-4.0 you were using? Does it run faster if you compile it with clang-4.0? :) On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On this topic, I just tried to build ToT with clang-3.9.1 and clang-4.0 > and the total time to complete `ninja clang` on this machine went from > 12m54s to

I'm having trouble figuring out what the error "Instruction does not dominate all uses!" means. I'm trying to construct a call to a function with two parameters. The printed IR, with error, looks like this: define i32 @add(i32, i32) { EntryBlock: %2 = add i32 %0, %1 ret i32 %2 } define i32 @eval_expr() { EntryBlock: ret i32 <badref> } Instruction does not dominate

Thanks Bjorn! But The problem is still there. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:04 AM, Björn Pettersson A < bjorn.a.pettersson at ericsson.com> wrote: > It looks quite dangerous to erase the instruction I inside the loop when > iterating over all instructions in the function. > I guess it depends on how the range based iterator is implemented if that > works or not. > > I think

Hi, Continuing recent efforts in understanding compile time slowdowns, I looked at some historical data: I picked one test and tried to pin-point commits that affected its compile-time. The data I have is not 100% accurate, but hopefully it helps to provide an overview of what's going on with compile time in LLVM and give a better understanding of what changes usually impact compile time.