similar to: [LLVMdev] identifying all dependent instructions through multi-levels of def-use relationship

Dear Chuck, I haven't read all of the details, but it seems that what you need to do is to clone defs before you clone any uses of the def. To do that, you want to iterate over the instructions in dominator-tree order. To do that, you first construct the dominator tree (there is an LLVM analysis pass that does that). Then, you iterate over the basic blocks in the dominator tree from

I collected a sequence of LLVM instructions, want to make a copy of each and insert them into a PREVIOUS location inside the same function (all globals and locals are properly declared before the PREVIOUS location). Here is the list of instructions I want to duplicate and insert: 0 %90 = load i32* @strstart, align 4 1 %91 = add i32 %90, 2 2 %88 = load i32* @ins_h, align 4 3 %92 =

Hi Chuck, > std::vector<Instruction *>::iterator p; > Instruction * pi = PREVIOUS_POSITION; > BasicBlock * pb = PREVIOUS_POSITION->getParent(); > > for(p = coll.begin(); p != coll.end(); ++p){ > Instruction * CurI = * p; > Instruction * CloneI = CurI->clone(); clone doesn't know have any magical way of knowing that it should update the instruction's

I have the following prototype for a function: void bkp_memory(char *, int); Inside my LLVM IR, I have a callsite looks like the following: tail call void @bkp_memory(i8* bitcast (i32** @P to i8*), i32 4) nounwind When I try to obtain its 1st argument and check whether it is a valid instruction, using: Instruction *Inst = dyn_cast<Instruction *>(I->getOperand(0)); it gives me a

On 5/16/11 9:35 AM, Chuck Zhao wrote: > I have the following prototype for a function: > void bkp_memory(char *, int); > > Inside my LLVM IR, I have a callsite looks like the following: > tail call void @bkp_memory(i8* bitcast (i32** @P to i8*), i32 4) nounwind > > > When I try to obtain its 1st argument and check whether it is a valid > instruction, using: >

False Alarm!! Still don't know how to do it! I am trying to write a transformation pass to extract a loop body into a function. For example: The Loop in question is: for (i2 = 0; i2 < LOOP_SIZE; i2++) { A[B[i2]] = 2 * B[i2]; } The IR for which is: bb13: ; preds = %bb13, %bb %i2.0.reg2mem.0 = phi i32 [ 0, %bb ], [ %indvar.next62, %bb13 ] ; <i32>

Sorry! It worked with ExtractBasicBlock() ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mrunal J Shah" <mrunal.shah at gatech.edu> To: "llvmdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2008 8:30:33 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [LLVMdev] How to extract loop body into a new function? Hi All, I am having trouble extracting loop body into a new

Hi All, I am having trouble extracting loop body into a new function. The ExtractLoop() or ExtractBasicBlock() extracts the entire loop along with the header into a new function. All I want is to extract the body of the loop into a new function(without the header). Is this possible? Thanks, Mrunal

I have recently installed wine (Wine 20040213) on SuSE 9.1 (from RPM) and I am trying to get a few windows application to run. My procedure is as described in the wine user guide: copy the "app" directory from original windows to the wine "Program Files" directory, run "wine app", see what DLL is missing, copy that one to sytem folder and add a corresponding line to

I just added a window server 2008 r2 to be a backup DC for our samba 4.4.5 AD/DC but I am getting an error when trying to manually sync samba to the windows server. I used the link on the wiki site to make the initial sync, which worked great § <https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Joining_a_Windows_Server_2008_/_2008_R2_ DC_to_a_Samba_AD> Joining a Windows Server 2008 / 2008 R2 DC to a

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > and since result of *it is considered to be rvalue it can't be accepted > > by this operator. The complete discussion is in > > > > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1385.htm > > > > I'd suggest to apply the following patch which makes operator* return >

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Yea, I've noticed that. However, it looks like inst_iterator is iterator over > pointers. Oh, wait a minite, that's the current code: > > inline IIty operator*() const { return BI; } > inline IIty operator->() const { return operator*(); } > > So operator* works as if value_type is Instruction*, but operator->

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > and since result of *it is considered to be rvalue it can't be accepted by > this operator. The complete discussion is in > > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1385.htm > > I'd suggest to apply the following patch which makes operator* return > reference to pointer. It makes my code compile and the rest

Chris Lattner wrote: > > inline IIty operator*() const { return BI; } > > inline IIty operator->() const { return operator*(); } > > > > So operator* works as if value_type is Instruction*, but operator-> works > > as if value_type is Instruction. Hmm ;-) > > Yeah, fishy huh? :) Yea, a bit. I've decided that before changing that I'd better

Hello, I think there's a rather subtle problem with the inst_iterator. It declares its iterator category as std::bidirectional_iterator_tag but C++ standard requirements for forward iterator (which are included in requirements for bidirection iterator), say that the type of expression *r; should be T&, where 'r' is the iterator and T is its value type. The inst_iterator,

A problem here getting winbind traffic to be encrypted using Kerberos. I have set up a test environment with a pair of servers (actually lxc containers): - samba server (ubuntu 16.04, stock samba 4.3.11) - client machine (ubuntu 16.04) joined with "net ads join" and winbind The client machine has the following in /etc/samba/smb.conf: ------- [global] #netbios name = client-ad