similar to: [LLVMdev] How to convert an iterator to an object pointer

Hi Surinder, You'll need to dereference your iterator to get a pointer: const BasicBlock *p = *pr; Cheers, Lang. On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Surinder <surifilms at gmail.com> wrote: > I have a pointer to a basic block and am iterating thru its > predecessor blocks. I want to get a pointer to the predecessor block. > How do I do it. I am using following code and it

Hi I have checked all blocks, each block have a Terminator instruction and each blocks belongs to a function. I'm really confused. I guess the problem is caused by the removal of the Loop,The code is as follows: * //every block to header (except the ones in the loop), will now redirect to newblock for (pred_iterator PI = pred_begin(header); PI != pred_end(header); ++PI) {

On Feb 1, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > On Feb 1, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Andrew Clinton wrote: > >> I have a (non-entry) basic block that contains only PHI nodes and an >> unconditional branch (that does not branch to itself). Is it always >> possible to merge this block with it's successor and produce a >> semantically equivalent program? I'm

Hi! I want to know How to count the number of predecessors for each basic block? Thank You ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Here's what I've got so far - it seems to work, aside from the fact that DeleteDeadPHIs is not removing at least one dead PHI in my test program. --------------------- static bool mergeBlockIntoSuccessor(BasicBlock *pred, BasicBlock *succ) { if (succ == pred) return false; if (pred->getFirstNonPHI() != pred->getTerminator()) return false; //

How can I get list of its predecessor basic blocks from a basic block? --Rajwinder Singh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100625/21c52063/attachment.html>

Hi, All I want to implement DSWP Which is used for parallelization of loops. For this purpose, the loop was replaced with a new basic block in main function. And new functions were created and basic blocks of Loop assigned to them.I have checked blocks and branches for Succ and Pred relation and I have not found any problems. However I get the following error: * **opt:

Has anyone written a grammar for LLVM for ANTLR. I mean an ANTLR grammar that parses LLVM instructions. Is an LLVM grammar available for any other parsing tool? Surinder

I have written a new pass, it compiles ok but crashes when i run it with error (llvm::Pass::Pass(llvm::PassKind, intptr_t): Assertion `pid && "pid cannot be 0"' failed.). The pass is : using namespace llvm; namespace { struct Dfl : public FunctionPass { static char ID; Dfl() : FunctionPass(ID) { } virtual bool runOnFunction(Function &F) { bool

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 (llvm/include/llvm/Pass.h:188: error: incomplete type 'llvm::DominatorTree' used in nested name specifier). The code is given below. Surinder struct Dfl : public FunctionPass { raw_ostream *Out; static

Hi Sam, Thanks for your reply. I am implementing my research (http://www.it.usyd.edu.au/~suri/Detecting%20Buffer%20Over.pdf), a translation of LLVM to a simple non-deterministic language to detect buffer overflows. It involves (1) printing a control flow graph of basic blocks of a function (easily done) (2) translating each llvm statement to a corresponding data flow language (needs ASTs to

Is the pass "Break Critical edges" acheives the same as edge-splitting SSA, i.e., a node has either multiple predecessors or multiple successors but not both. A node with multiple predecessors and multiple successors is replaced by two consecutive nodes joined together. The first node has multiple predecessors and second node as its only successor. The second node has first node as

llvm/include/llvm/Pass.h:93: llvm::Pass::Pass(llvm::PassKind, intptr_t): Assertion `pid && "pid cannot be 0"' failed. On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Surinder <surifilms at gmail.com> wrote: > I have written a new pass, it compiles ok but crashes when i run it > with error (llvm::Pass::Pass(llvm::PassKind, intptr_t): Assertion `pid > && "pid

Hello Surinder, The existing hand-written parser is callable from almost anywhere so the only reason you'd need to have a parser for it would be to extend it. Originally it was written using Flex and Bison but Chris Lattner rewrote it from scratch to catch more errors at the parsing stage. The only feature I've found to be missing from the existing LLVM-AS utility was an include

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 Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > However, it does not remove all the critical edges. I am getting a very > weird dataflow graph (even without the Break Critical edges pass). The > dataflow generated by MachineFunction::dump() for the program below is > given here: > http://compilers.cs.ucla.edu/fernando/projects/soc/images/loop_no_crit2.pdf ... > The

On 25/06/10 06:05, RAJWINDER SINGH wrote: > How can I get list of its predecessor basic blocks from a basic block? If BB is a BasicBlock*, you can get begin and end iterators using pred_begin(BB) and pred_end(BB). Ciao, Duncan.

Hi, while reading the TailDuplication pass, I found a check that looks rather pointless. TailDuplication looks at an unconditional branch instruction, BI. It performs a number of checks on the successor of this branch instruction, Dest. One of this checks is counting the number of predecessor. If this count is zero, Dest is regarded as dead and no tail duplication happens. However, as far as I

Hi, On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Today, the IR requires that if you have multiple edges from A to B >> (typically with a switch) any phi nodes in B must have an equal number of >> entries for A, but that all of them must have the same value. > >> This seems rather annoying.... >> 1) It

Sorry, still a bit confused. Say we have two basic blocks: A and B. B has a label. There is no branch/control flow instructions explicit uses B. like this: A: code sequence does not contain br/other control flow instruction B: lable_of_b: code sequence Is A still a predecessor of B? Thanks. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Zhou Feng wrote: > >> hi, >> I'm