similar to: [LLVMdev] How to change the type of an Instruction?

Hi, Nick, thanks for the reply. I still have a problem: I only need to "clone" an Instruction, changing its type. That is, I would like to keep all characteristics of the old Instruction and create a new one only with a different type. I am trying create a new Instruction thus: %3 = add nsw i32 %1, %2 ; <i16> [#uses=2] //Old Instruction Value* Op0 = I->getOperand(0); Value*

On 21 January 2011 12:56, Douglas do Couto Teixeira < douglasdocouto at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello guys, > > I wonder how I can change the type of an integer variable. For instance, > given the instruction "%3 = add i32 %1, %2" I would like to alter the > instruction to "%3 = add i16 %1, %2". Is there any way to do this? > No. Instead you create a new

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > On 01/24/2011 04:41 AM, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Nick, thanks for the reply. >> I still have a problem: I only need to "clone" an Instruction, changing >> its type. That is, I would like to keep all characteristics of the old >> Instruction

On 01/24/2011 04:41 AM, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: > Hi, > > Nick, thanks for the reply. > I still have a problem: I only need to "clone" an Instruction, changing > its type. That is, I would like to keep all characteristics of the old > Instruction and create a new one only with a different type. Sure, but what about its operands? An "add" instruction

On 1/24/11 12:05 PM, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca > <mailto:nicholas at mxc.ca>> wrote: > > On 01/24/2011 04:41 AM, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: > > Hi, > > Nick, thanks for the reply. > I still have a problem: I only need to "clone" an

Hi, guys, Thanks a lot for your help. As you know, I am trying to implement something to change the types of the instructions. And I chose the trunc's approach because it seems be simple. But I still have some problems and questions. Would be great if you can help me. I have used the results of my range analysis implementation to change the intermediate representation. I am using

Hello everyone, is there any way to replace an instruction inside LLVM that is more elegant than creating a new one, replacing uses and deleting the old one if I only want to modify the type? It is generally not a big deal, but the issue gets really messy if I am in the middle of iterating over uses and start deleting some of them... I hope I could describe my problem well enough ;) Regards,

Ralf Karrenberg wrote: > Hello everyone, > > is there any way to replace an instruction inside LLVM that is more > elegant than creating a new one, replacing uses and deleting the old one > if I only want to modify the type? It is generally not a big deal, but > the issue gets really messy if I am in the middle of iterating over uses > and start deleting some of them... >

Hi Eli, Mon Ping, > In ISO/IEC WG14 n1169 on the C extensions to support embedded > processors, any two address spaces must be disjoint, must be > equivalent, or must be nested. Ah, that standard is a lot clearer on this subject than the DSP-C one I read was. > As Eli indicated, the actual relationship is platform specific depending on > what makes the most sense for

Hi all, > If I read the standard correctly, the properties of these address spaces can > be fully captured by defining the relationship between every pair of address > spaces (disjoint, identical, subset/superset). > > I think it would make sense to make these relationships backend/platform > specific, but for clang and the optimization passes to properly work with > address

In ISO/IEC WG14 n1169 on the C extensions to support embedded processors, any two address spaces must be disjoint, must be equivalent, or must be nested. As Eli indicated, the actual relationship is platform specific depending on what makes the most sense for your hardware and how the program will behave will depend on that relationship. -- Mon Ping On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:25 AM, Eli

Many DI-related bugs are caused by missing Debug Location in an instruction created in a transformation. Most of the time the fix is trivial once you found where the culprit instruction is created (https://reviews.llvm.org/D50263). Currently, when you create a new Instruction, in order to give it DL you have to either use an IRBuilder that is previously set to the correct DL or “manually” create

Hi everybody, I saw that there are some instructions in the programs in which the flag nsw or nuw is placed. I wonder what rules does LLVM follows to put these flags in some instructions. Best, Douglas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110112/e696af22/attachment.html>

Hi guys, I have an analysis that is able to answer questions like this: given an integer variable, what is the interval of values that this variable can assume during the program's execution? I want to integrate this analysis into LLVM and it seems LVI (Lazy Value Info) is the best place to do this kind of stuff. Can someone give some hints about what I have to do to integrate my analysis

Dear guys, I am in need of discovering induction variables in loops. Does LLVM provide a pass that already does this? For instance, given: int a = 0, i; for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) { a += 5; } I would like to know that variable 'a' depends on variable 'i'. Thank you very much, Douglas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello, I am trying to print out output name of "unnamed temporary". For instance, for %3 = add i32 %21, i32 %index.01, I would like to print out %3. Can anybody please let me know how I can get it? Thank you -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110921/56a6991a/attachment.html>

Hi all, PolyBench (http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~pouchet/software/polybench/) is a well-known benchmark for polyhedral compiler. Since LLVM-Polly http://polly.llvm.org/) has provided a very good polyhedral optimizer for LLVM, could we add this benchmark to LLVM test-suite? I have attached the patch file to add PolyBench to LLVM test-suite. Best wishes, Star Tan -------------- next part

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > > > On 3/23/11 8:06 AM, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: > > > > the execution of a program. Thus, for each integer variable, a range > > analysis determines its lower and upper limits. A very simple range analysis > > > would, for instance, map each variable to the limits

Hi Surinder, Did you remember to #include "llvm/Analysis/Dominators.h"? Best, Douglas On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Surinder <surifilms at gmail.com> wrote: > I am creating a new pass (function pass) called Dfl from the Hello > example and notes on "Writing an LLVM Pass". When I compile the > program I get inncomplete type error

On 08/12/2010 09:41 PM, Douglas do Couto Teixeira wrote: > Dear guys, > > I am having problems to obtain good information from the LoopInfo. > I am always getting a trip count of 0, even though I am clearly passing > a loop with a constant bound. I am using this pass below: Hi, I would propose to first check if the trip count is calculated correctly. I would do this with opt