similar to: [LLVMdev] Erasing dead blocks

hi, my code inherits InstVisitor class, and visitBranchInst() method. however, i notice that inside the virtual method visitBranchInst(BranchInst &I), on the LLVM instruction like: br i1 %1, label %2, label %3 my code doesnt return expected info. for ex, the code I.getCondition->getName().str() would return empty string. and at the same time, the code I.getSuccessor(0)->getName()

Hi All, I am trying to write code for simple instrumentation. What I want to do is to insert a call to an external function for result of each conditional branch instruction. This external function simply print true or false based on the result of condition. The modified code is then written into new file. However when I try to link that file with another bitcode file (containing external

Moving to LLVM dev to discuss the possibility of extending the cast infrastructure to handle this. On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:51 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > On Nov 18, 2012, at 5:05 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> TypeLoc casting looks bogus. >> >> TypeLoc derived types return true from classof when the dynamic type >>

A: When the types are created in different contexts. I've been running into a module validation error related to phi nodes produced by the GVN pass, where the types of the incoming values aren't the same instance of IntegerType i1. I'm not certain I've found the root cause of the problem yet, it's probably due to my handling of LLVMContext & Module life cycles, and this

Hi We have applied the routing patches from http://www.ssi.bg/%7Eja/#routes. To 2.6.15 this seems to have broken our output natting. Has anyone else experienced this or any advice on how to fix. Is this working on the newer kernel i.e. 2.6.19 ? Any help would be appreciated. -- Tim Haak email: tim@haak.co.uk cel: 0837787100 First love is only a little foolishness and a lot of curiosity,

Hi, this is a bit of a newbie question: I am trying to discover, given a block with a conditional and its successors, which condition (T/F) each successor applies to. There's almost identical code in CFGPrinter.cpp, but where it gets called in GraphWriter.h, the child_iterator type is a pretty hairy thing, so I still don't quite understand how to get one from a BasicBlock in my own

Hi all, I've been looking into how to make llvm bitcode files smaller. There is one simple change that appears to shrink linked bitcode files by about 15%. See this spreadsheet for some rough data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjRrJHQc4_bddEtJdjdIek5fMDdIdFFIZldZXzdWa0E The change is in how operand ids are encoded in bitcode files. Rather than use an "absolute

Just moving this branch of the thread out of the review because I don't want to derail the review thread... Kostya - why are these two cases not optimization bugs in general? (why do they only affect sanitizers?) On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > And we've been just informed by the mozilla folks about yet another case > of

Hi Jan, > I've been looking into how to make llvm bitcode files smaller. There is one > simple change that appears to shrink linked bitcode files by about 15%. See > this spreadsheet for some rough data: > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjRrJHQc4_bddEtJdjdIek5fMDdIdFFIZldZXzdWa0E the improvement is wonderful! ... > In any case, the patch is attached if

Jeremy Lakeman wrote: > A: When the types are created in different contexts. > > I've been running into a module validation error related to phi nodes > produced by the GVN pass, where the types of the incoming values aren't > the same instance of IntegerType i1. > > I'm not certain I've found the root cause of the problem yet, it's > probably due to my

Hello again :) It's been some time since I sent you last patch, but here I'm again. I send the patch for PR5373. Regards -- Jakub Staszak -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pr5373.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5913 bytes Desc: not available URL:

Hi, I'm learning to use the llvm API, but I got a question for which I haven't found a good answer yet: What is the best way to turn an unconditional branch into a conditional branch? All I want to do is add two more operands, a successor and a condition. But no matter how I try to do this any one of setCondition()/setOperand()/setSuccessor() causes an assertion like these: Cannot

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:25 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Just moving this branch of the thread out of the review because I don't > want to derail the review thread... > > Kostya - why are these two cases not optimization bugs in general? (why do > they only affect sanitizers?) > The recent case from mozilla (

The root cause of those issues is the fact that sanitizers verify C++-level semantics with LLVM IR level instrumentation. For example, speculative loads are OK in IR if it can be proved that the load won't trap, but in C++ it would be a data race. On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:25 PM, David

The SCCP pass was failing an assertion that I traced back to SCCPSolver::visitExtractValueInst. getStructValueState was used on the aggregate operand even if it had no structure type. I added a check to use getStructValueState for structs and getValueState for other operands. This behavior was introduced in r85793. Please note that I'm not sure whether my changes correctly address this

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Kuperstein, Michael M < michael.m.kuperstein at intel.com> wrote: > My $0.02 - I'm not sure the transformation introduces a data race. > > To the best of my understanding, the point of the C++11/C11 memory model > is to allow a wide array of compiler transformations - including > speculative loads - for non-atomic variables. > I believe

Hi all, I had a look at the interprocedural optimizer. In my opinion the routine 'GlobalOpt::ProcessInternalGlobal' is a little bit to conservative. It removes global variables if the only routine using this variable is main. Typically this condition is valid only for very few global variables. Here is a code snippet containing the test before the transformation: file:

The last bit here + if (LoopExitBB) { + // It is possible that for both successors isTrivialLoopExitBlock() + // returns different exit blocks. It means that the loop isn't trivial, + // just quit then. + if (LoopExitBB != LoopExitBB2) + return false; + } else if (Val) { + // if LoopExitBB == LoopExitBB2 pick the first one (true). +

On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > The last bit here > > + if (LoopExitBB) { > + // It is possible that for both successors isTrivialLoopExitBlock() > + // returns different exit blocks. It means that the loop isn't trivial, > + // just quit then. > + if (LoopExitBB != LoopExitBB2) > + return false; > +

Hi, i am playing the ScalarEvolution these days. i found the the ScalarEvolution will simply return a SCEVUnknow for a ICmpInst, so i think maybe great to add a new kind of SCEV to the ScalarEvolution framework. for example, if i run ScalarEvolution on the bc file generate from the following C source file: int f(int a, int b, int c, int d) { return (2 * a + 5 * c + 2) > (4 * d - 3*b