similar to: [LLVMdev] Extract operations as function

Great!! Thanks Duncan. By step 1 that you mentioned it seems I can write my function func(x,y,op) in mypass.cpp itself. Please elaborate how can add it to the module? On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Manish, > > > I am planning to extract every operation as function. > > > > eg. z=x+y; ==> z=func(x,y,op); > >

Hi Manish, > I am planning to extract every operation as function. > > eg. z=x+y; ==> z=func(x,y,op); > > I wish to write a custom definition of op. Which I would like to define in func. > > It would be really helpful if someone could suggest passes already available in > llvm to look for or point some references how should one proceed on it. I think you should write

Hi Manish, > Great!! Thanks Duncan. > By step 1 that you mentioned it seems I can write my function func(x,y,op) in > mypass.cpp itself. Please elaborate how can add it to the module? the minimum is to add a prototype for "func" to the module. For that you can use getOrInsertFunction. If you want to insert the code defining "func" too, then insert the prototype,

Hi! Attached patches split init.trampoline into adjust.trampoline and init.trampoline, like in gcc. As mentioned in the previous mail, I've not made a documentation patch, since I'm not sure about what the documented semantics of llvm.adjust.trampoline should be. Thanks! -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was

Hello, I am creating a new instruction and I want to replace the use of a specified instruction. This is the code I have written Instruction *new_instr = BinaryOperator::Create(Instruction::Sub, op1, op2, ""); b->getInstList().insertAfter(old_instr, new_instr); //b is the BasicBlock old_instr->replaceAllUsesWith(new_instr); old_instr->eraseFromParent(); When I print the

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? Best wishes, Douglas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

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*

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

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

Hi. This is part of my code: ... if (auto* op = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(&I)) { Value* lhs = op->getOperand(0); Value* rhs = op->getOperand(1); Value* mul = builder.CreateMul(lhs, rhs); for (auto& U : op->uses()) { User* user = U.getUser(); user->setOperand(U.getOperandNo(), mul); } I.eraseFromParent(); } ... This leads to the following

Hi. Thanks. I changed the code but the problem exists. This is my new code which is again very simple: ... bool runOnFunction(Function &F) override { vector<Instruction *> dels; dels.clear(); for (inst_iterator It = inst_begin(&F), Ie = inst_end(&F); It != Ie;) { Instruction *I = &*(It++); if (auto* op = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(I)) { IRBuilder<NoFolder>

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

Thanks Bjorn! But The problem is still there. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:04 AM, Björn Pettersson A < bjorn.a.pettersson at ericsson.com> wrote: > It looks quite dangerous to erase the instruction I inside the loop when > iterating over all instructions in the function. > I guess it depends on how the range based iterator is implemented if that > works or not. > > I think

The code is really simple. But I can not the reason for the segmentation fault. I only know that the eraseFromParent() function leads to it. The whole code is: ... bool runOnFunction(Function &F) override { for (auto &I : instructions(F)) { if (auto* op = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(&I)) { IRBuilder<> builder(op); Value* lhs = op->getOperand(0); Value* rhs =

Hi, I have a question about the llvm passes. I'm iterating over a basicblock and I can get an instruction and print it. Now, I want to iterate over the instruction and be able to modify the values of the instruction. For example, if my instruction is an add "<result> = add i32 4, %var" I want to transform it in a sub "<result> = sub i32 4, %var". I looked up

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

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

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

Thanks, but I replaceAllUsesWith() - works well, but I still get bug in eraseFromParent(): While deleting: i32 (%class.B*, i32)* %_ZN1B1xEi An asserting value handle still pointed to this value! UNREACHABLE executed at /Users/neonomaly/LLVM/LLVM/lib/VMCore/Value.cpp:561! Yours sincerely, Kadysev Mikhail 21.04.2012, в 23:45, Nick Lewycky написал(а): > Михаил wrote: >> How correctly

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