similar to: [LLVMdev] How to get the name and argument of a function

Thanks a lot! I finally fix my problem. My code is like this: //CallInst* pCall pCall is a printf called in my situation if( ConstantExpr * pCE = dyn_cast<ConstantExpr>( pCall->getArgOperand(0))){ if( GlobalVariable * pGV = dyn_cast<GlobalVariable>( pCE->getOperand(0))){ if( ConstantArray * pCA = dyn_cast<ConstantArray>(

songlh at cs.wisc.edu wrote: > Hi everyone: > > The code I am analyzing is : > > int main() > { > int i = 0; > printf("hello world!"); > printf( "%d" , i ); > } > > > > I want to get each place where printf is called, and the argument used > during that call. > > so I write llvm

> On 1/26/11 2:40 PM, songlh at cs.wisc.edu wrote: >> thanks! >> >> After I check the ll file, I find this: >> >> %1 = load %struct.nsAString** %aBuf_addr, align 4, !dbg !2048 >> %2 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.nsAString* %1, i32 0, i32 0, !dbg >> !2048 >> %3 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.nsISupports* %2, i32 0, i32 0, !dbg >> !2048

thanks! After I check the ll file, I find this: %1 = load %struct.nsAString** %aBuf_addr, align 4, !dbg !2048 %2 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.nsAString* %1, i32 0, i32 0, !dbg !2048 %3 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.nsISupports* %2, i32 0, i32 0, !dbg !2048 %4 = load i32 (...)*** %3, align 4, !dbg !2048 %5 = getelementptr inbounds i32 (...)** %4, i32 10, !dbg !2048 %6 = load i32 (...)**

Hi: My llvm code is: for( BasicBlock::iterator i = b->begin() , ie = b->end(); b != be ; b ++ ){ if( CallInst * pCall = dyn_cast<CallInst>(i)){ pCall->dump(); // Function * pFunction = pCall->getCalledFunction(); if( !pFunction ){ } std::string fname = pFunction->getName(); } } The dump result

On 1/26/11 3:00 PM, songlh at cs.wisc.edu wrote: >> On 1/26/11 2:40 PM, songlh at cs.wisc.edu wrote: >>> thanks! >>> >>> After I check the ll file, I find this: >>> >>> %1 = load %struct.nsAString** %aBuf_addr, align 4, !dbg !2048 >>> %2 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.nsAString* %1, i32 0, i32 0, !dbg >>> !2048 >>> %3

On 1/26/11 2:40 PM, songlh at cs.wisc.edu wrote: > thanks! > > After I check the ll file, I find this: > > %1 = load %struct.nsAString** %aBuf_addr, align 4, !dbg !2048 > %2 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.nsAString* %1, i32 0, i32 0, !dbg !2048 > %3 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.nsISupports* %2, i32 0, i32 0, !dbg !2048 > %4 = load i32 (...)*** %3, align 4, !dbg !2048

On 1/26/11 2:07 PM, songlh at cs.wisc.edu wrote: > Hi: > > My llvm code is: > > for( BasicBlock::iterator i = b->begin() , ie = b->end(); > b != be ; b ++ ){ > if( CallInst * pCall = dyn_cast<CallInst>(i)){ > > pCall->dump(); // > Function * pFunction = pCall->getCalledFunction(); > if(

> On 1/26/11 3:00 PM, songlh at cs.wisc.edu wrote: >>> On 1/26/11 2:40 PM, songlh at cs.wisc.edu wrote: >>>> thanks! >>>> >>>> After I check the ll file, I find this: >>>> >>>> %1 = load %struct.nsAString** %aBuf_addr, align 4, !dbg !2048 >>>> %2 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.nsAString* %1, i32 0, i32 0, !dbg

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jingyue Wu" <jingyue at google.com> > To: "songlh" <songlh at cs.wisc.edu>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:50:12 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] how to choose which alias analysis used in my pass? > > > Isn't -basicaa the default alias analysis already? No, -basicaa is added

Hi, I want to use memory dependence analysis in my pass, but I feel the default alias analysis is not precise enough. How could I choose to use another alias analysis algorithm? I have tried opt -load mypass.so -basicaa xx.bc > /dev/null. But I feel the alias analysis algorithm does not change. Do I need to add something in my codes? Thanks a lot! Best,

Hi, I just notice that front-end will add an extra block for switch instruction without default. How could I identify basic blocks added due to this reason? The added codes looks like: sw.default.i625: ; preds = %if.end512 tail call void @fancy_abort(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([38 x i8]* @.str, i64 0, i64 0), i32 3045, i8* getelementptr inbounds

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ashutosh Nema" <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> > To: "songlh" <songlh at cs.wisc.edu>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:20:27 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about licm > > Hi, > > LICM can only hoist instructions which dominates all loop exit > blocks. > In this case

hi, I applied licm with basicaa on the following codes: int j = atoi(argc[1]); int lower[] = {10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1}; int upper[] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}; for(i = lower[j]; a[i] < 100 && i < upper[j]; i ++); I notice that upper[j] is not hoisted out from the loop. Is this because j could be larger than 10? Thanks a lot! Best,

Hi, I am wondering whether there are some ways I can tell clang not inline some or all functions. Thanks a lot! Linhai

> On 1/26/11 3:06 PM, songlh at cs.wisc.edu wrote: >>> [snip] >>> -- John T. >> Sorry, I am asking the second question. >> " >> how to determine, within an LLVM pass, what the >> possible target(s) of an indirect function call might be? > > There are at least two solutions. > > The first is to use the CallGraph analysis pass. It

Hi all, Sorry for the inconvenient about the previous post. The files were not attached. So I put them here again. I am a newbie in LLVM and I am trying to replace the function like: old function || new function ============================== ========= int haha(int a) { int haha(int a, char* ID) { ===> }

Hello, In my module I have functions: a b c f3 calls "a" f2 calls "a" f1 calls "b" I would like to modify a CallInst in the f2. Now it calls "a", but I want changed it to "c". When loop over the instructions of the f2, I can get a CallInst to be modified, then I use "setName" to changed it to "c". Problem is, since

While improving ADCE, i notice that for declare i32 @strlen(i8*) readnone define i32 @test() { ; invoke of pure function should not be deleted! invoke i32 @strlen( i8* null ) readnone to label %Cont unwind label %Other ; <i32>:1 [#uses=0] Cont: ; preds = %0 ret i32 0 Other: ; preds = %0 %exn = landingpad {i8*, i32} personality i32 (...)* @__gxx_personality_v0

Going to keep this RFC short and to the point: TerminatorInst doesn't pull its weight in the type system. There is essentially a single relevant API -- iterating successors. There is no other interesting aspect shared -- the interface itself just dispatches to specific instructions to be implemented. On the flip side, CallInst and InvokeInst have *massive* amounts of code shared and struggle