similar to: [LLVMdev] <badref> showed up when duplicating a list of dependent instructions

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

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

While working on my optimization pass (a Function Pass), I try to replicate a call instruction and insert it at some earlier location (similar to LICM). However, the instruction I am trying to replicate has dependencies on an uncertain number of instructions that are used to generate an address. A simple example (IR segment): define void @foo() nounwind { entry: %a = alloca i32, align 4;

edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > I'm having trouble figuring out what the error "Instruction does not > dominate all uses!" means. I'm trying to construct a call to a function > with two parameters. The printed IR, with error, looks like this: > > define i32 @add(i32, i32) { > EntryBlock: > %2 = add i32 %0, %1 > ret i32 %2 > } > > define i32

I'm having trouble figuring out what the error "Instruction does not dominate all uses!" means. I'm trying to construct a call to a function with two parameters. The printed IR, with error, looks like this: define i32 @add(i32, i32) { EntryBlock: %2 = add i32 %0, %1 ret i32 %2 } define i32 @eval_expr() { EntryBlock: ret i32 <badref> } Instruction does not dominate

While adapting my JIT compiler to ToT coming from 2.5, I found this: Referencing global in another module! %3 = bitcast [8 x i8]** <badref> to i8* ; <i8*> [#uses=1]Instruction <badref> is a naked (void*) pointer. This worked on 2.5 without problem. I tried creating a GlobalVariable: external constant [8 x i8]* ; <[8 x i8]**>:<badref>

Okay, I've think I understand now. By using a "Value" object (like a function call) in another instruction does nothing more than use a reference to that value. It is still my responsibility to ensure that value/reference is actually created prior to its use in the block. On 02/11/12 12:16, Nick Lewycky wrote: > edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: >> I'm having trouble figuring

Hi edA-qa mort-ora-y, On 02/11/12 10:20, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > I'm having trouble figuring out what the error "Instruction does not > dominate all uses!" means. I'm trying to construct a call to a function > with two parameters. The printed IR, with error, looks like this: > > define i32 @add(i32, i32) { > EntryBlock: > %2 = add i32 %0, %1 >

Thanks for the quick response. I wrote some code to search “llvm.dbg.cu” for the function (right before the failed assertion): if (TheCU == nullptr) { errs() << "compile unit: " << TheCU << "\n scopeNode(" << FnScope->getScopeNode() << ") => " << *FnScope->getScopeNode() << "\n"; auto fn =

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Brandon Holt <bholt at cs.washington.edu> wrote: > Thanks for the quick response. > > I wrote some code to search “llvm.dbg.cu” for the function (right before the > failed assertion): > > if (TheCU == nullptr) { > errs() << "compile unit: " << TheCU << "\n scopeNode(" << >

In your transform I'd take a look at things like the individual basic blocks you're replacing and the functions you're replacing and making sure that the various lexical blocks are being changed at the same time... -eric On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:12 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Brandon Holt <bholt at

How do I find and update the lexical blocks? Is, for example, “CloneFunction” doing this in a way I can copy? I tried finding the subprogram node in “llvm.dbg.cu” and updating the function: DISubprogram s(*subprog_iter); if (s.getFunction() == F) { s.replaceFunction(NF); } But this didn’t seem to have any effect. Do I need to do something similar with every basic block or something? On Dec

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Brandon Holt <bholt at cs.washington.edu> wrote: > In a pass I’m working on, I’ve done some manipulation of several functions, replacing them with new copies with different types, etc. > > The LLVM IR passes the verifier, but when I have debug symbols enabled (“-g”), I get the following error when Clang generates the Dwarf info (using a very recent

In a pass I’m working on, I’ve done some manipulation of several functions, replacing them with new copies with different types, etc. The LLVM IR passes the verifier, but when I have debug symbols enabled (“-g”), I get the following error when Clang generates the Dwarf info (using a very recent build of LLVM/Clang from Git mirror): > Assertion failed: (TheCU && "Unable to find

Hi David, I'm seeing an assertion failure when passing this node !{i32 786454, metadata <badref>, metadata <badref>, metadata !"fn_t", i32 5, i64 0, i64 0, i64 0, i32 0, metadata <badref>} ; [ DW_TAG_typedef ] [fn_t] [line 5, size 0, align 0, offset 0] [from ] as the function type parameter to DIBuilder::createFunction, due to this check in DebugInfo.cpp:

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi David, I'm seeing an assertion failure when passing this node > > !{i32 786454, metadata <badref>, metadata <badref>, metadata !"fn_t", i32 > 5, i64 0, i64 0, i64 0, i32 0, metadata <badref>} ; [ DW_TAG_typedef ] > [fn_t] [line 5, size 0, align 0, offset 0] [from ]

<div>Need help about Alias Analysis.</div><div>I try to detect use-after-free debug in source code. And my analysis is based on LLVM IR.</div><div>I use the following code as a small example. I want to get the result p&&q are alias.</div><div>//uaf.cpp</div><div><div>#include<iostream></div><div>using namespace

Hi Eric, On 10/04/13 00:20, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> Hi David, I'm seeing an assertion failure when passing this node >> >> !{i32 786454, metadata <badref>, metadata <badref>, metadata !"fn_t", i32 >> 5, i64 0, i64 0, i64 0, i32 0, metadata <badref>} ;

llvm is giving me some assertion errors when trying to replace an instruction, and I'm not quite sure of what to do. I have the following snippet of code: switch((*I)->getOpcode()) { case Instruction::Malloc: { AllocaInst *AI; AI = new AllocaInst(cast<AllocationInst>(*I)->getAllocatedType(), cast<AllocationInst>(*I)->getArraySize());

Hi During a pass, the XCore target lowers thread local global variables by turning them into global variable arrays indexed by the (max 8) thread ID. (see XCoreLowerThreadLocal.cpp) This works fine for instructions e.g. GetElementPtrInst But can't be done for constants e.g. GetElementPtrConstantExpr Thus I would like to replace GetElementPtrConstantExpr with GetElementPtrInst when it is