similar to: [LLVMdev] ReplaceInstWithInst appears to invalidate BB iterator?

On May 7, 2011, at 1:00 PM, llvmdev-request at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > Hi Justin, > >> I have a call to ReplaceInstWithInst(Instruction *From, Instruction *To) inside of a for loop iterating through a BasicBlock::iterator. On the very next pass after I replace the instruction, the iterator appears to be invalidated. Is this supposed to happen or am I doing something silly? Is

Hi, Thanks both of you for the help. I just missed that Create function had many optional arguments... sorry for that. However my problem wasn't coming from here (IRBuilder CreateCall function still return a pointer to CallInst so I just added 2 times the call?). I didn't wanted to detail the all issue previously because I knew I had a problem with my syntax. So here's my problem: I

Hello everyone, I wanted to copy a function from one file to another. The file that I wanted to copy the function into contains a function with the same name and same number of instructions. I decided to just replace the instructions with those of the other function. I am doing all of this from within a function pass. *1.* I created a function pass in which I extract a function using

I am trying to change this define void @main(float* noalias %arg0, float* noalias %arg1, float* noalias %arg2) { entrypoint: %0 = bitcast float* %arg1 to <4 x float>* intothis define void @main(float* noalias %arg0, float* noalias %arg1, float* noalias %arg2) { entrypoint: %0 = getelementptr float* %arg1, i64 0 %1 = bitcast float* %0 to <4 x float>* I must be close but

Hi, In my source code, I have the following declaration char a[30]; When I'm running the following (Assuming that I is an instruction pointer pointing to the instruction to be replaced, i.e. %a = alloca [30 x i8], align 1): ArrayType* arr = ArrayType::get(IntegerType::get(getGlobalContext(), 8), 10); AllocaInst* pa = new AllocaInst(arr, "blah"); BasicBlock::iterator ii(*I);

Hi everyone, I am trying to replace the call of a certain function with a call to another function. It would for example replace the following: %call = tail call noalias i8* @func(i64 10) by %call = tail call noalias i8* @other_func(i64 10) I managed to declare other_func correctly but I am having troubles to understand how I should proceed to do the replacement. I tried to use

LLVM is built in Release mode. The version is 6.0.0. I think that a similar code worked on verison 3.9.0. It is probably a null pointer dereference occurring in eraseFromParent(). I checked and reconfirmed that the instruction had no uses. Perhaps I should rebuild LLVM. Thanks. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:03 PM, mayuyu.io <admin at mayuyu.io> wrote: > Hmmmm that’s strange. Do you get an

Hi, This is probably more of a standard C++ question instead of an actual LLVM question, but here it goes anyway. I'm trying to invoke the following constructor: CallInst::CallInst(Value *Func, InputIterator ArgBegin, InputIterator ArgEnd, const Twine &NameStr, BasicBlock *InsertAtEnd); My code is: using namespace llvm; void replaceByClone(Function *f, CallInst *I){ Function *clone =

On May 23, 2008, at 4:10 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi all, > > I updated from 2.2 to the latest SVN head and I now get a debug > assert in BranchFolder::RemoveBlocksWithHash: “vector iterators > incompatible”. I’m using Visual C++ 2005. I think this is the > culprit code: > > MergePotentials.erase(CurMPIter); > if (CurMPIter==B) > break; >

Hi all, I updated from 2.2 to the latest SVN head and I now get a debug assert in BranchFolder::RemoveBlocksWithHash: "vector iterators incompatible". I'm using Visual C++ 2005. I think this is the culprit code: MergePotentials.erase(CurMPIter); if (CurMPIter==B) break; The erase clears the _Mycont field (i.e. the iterator's container), while the ==

Hi everyone, I am trying to write a pass, that finds some instructions and replaces them with my intrinsics, but I am having problem understanding, how this should be done. Let's say I have this instruction: %tmp14 = load i32* getelementptr ([32 x i32]* @gpregs, i32 0, i64 28) and i need to read the load's operands and replace it by let's say: %tmp14 = call i32

Hi, I got a problem when I am trying to add a dummy basic block. Let say there are two blocks, A and B. A----->B I am trying to generate new BB called C which is located between A and B, but not break the edge of AB. The graph is like the following A---->B \ / \ / C There is new BB 'C' with edges AC and CB. It is kind of like what breakcriticaledge pass does.

Hi, I have the following instruction in my IR- %call2 = call i8* @strcpy(i8* %1, i8* %2) #2 I intend to change call to strcpy with strncpy. I have included the following code in runOnFunction, so that when it is strcpy's turn to be invoked, strncpy is invoked instead. Assuming I* is the strcpy instruction, CallInst* x=new

Hi,I have the following instruction in my IR-%call2 = call i8* @strcpy(i8* %1, i8* %2) #2I intend to change call to strcpy with strncpy. I have included the following code in runOnFunction, so that when it is strcpy's turn to be invoked, strncpy is invoked instead.Assuming I* is the strcpy instruction,CallInst* x=new

Hi, I have a question about the modify of instruction: Say I want to modify %a = getelementptr %struct %S, long 0, ubyte 1 into %a.f0 = getelementptr int* %S.f0, long 0 There are 3 ways I can think of to implement, but I'm not sure what should I do. 1. I can use new GetElementPtr to create a new instruction and use ReplaceInstWithInst() function to replace the old one. 2. I can use new

On May 23, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > On May 23, 2008, at 4:10 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > >> I updated from 2.2 to the latest SVN head and I now get a debug >> assert in BranchFolder::RemoveBlocksWithHash: “vector iterators >> incompatible”. I’m using Visual C++ 2005. I think this is the >> culprit code: >> >>

Hi All, I need to remove successors from every basic block to insert new ones I tried this code, but it doesn't work void RemoveSuccessor(TerminatorInst *TI, unsigned SuccNum) { assert(SuccNum < TI->getNumSuccessors() && "Trying to remove a nonexistant successor!"); // If our old successor block contains any PHI nodes, remove the entry in the //

On May 27, 2008, at 2:01 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > On May 27, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Mike Stump wrote: >> >> From n2461: >> >>> 8 The insert members shall not affect the validity of iterators and >>> references to the container, and the erase members shall invalidate >>> only iterators and references to the erased elements. >> >> Pretty

What are the rules regarding iterator stability for SmallPtrSet? I'm running into a problem where erasing an element seems to invalidate iterators that are not pointing at the erased element. Specifically, the set is in small mode, I advance an iterator to the last element in the set (not end(), but one before) and then erase the second-to-last element. I understand that the last element

On May 27, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > On May 23, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: >> On May 23, 2008, at 4:10 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: >> I also am not a STL guru; the standard says erase >> "Invalidates all the iterators and references after the point of the >> erase" >> which is not wonderfully worded, but I take it to mean an