similar to: [LLVMdev] function terminators

On 5/17/2011 11:37 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi George, > >> Does llvm provide a way to determine instructions that cause control to >> leave functions? For example, return statements and exit statements cause >> control exit out of function. > there is no "exit" statement. > > I am looking for something similar to basic block >> terminators.

Hi George, > Does llvm provide a way to determine instructions that cause control to > leave functions? For example, return statements and exit statements cause > control exit out of function. there is no "exit" statement. I am looking for something similar to basic block > terminators. Thanks. Control can leave a function either (1) due to a return instruction

Hi all, Sorry for the inconvenient about the previous post. The files were not attached. So I put them here again. I am a newbie in LLVM and I am trying to replace the function like: old function || new function ============================== ========= int haha(int a) { int haha(int a, char* ID) { ===> }

What is the difference between a CallInst and an InvokeInst in LLVM? Is an InvokeInst a CallInst that can throw an exception? Thanks, Ryan

Going to keep this RFC short and to the point: TerminatorInst doesn't pull its weight in the type system. There is essentially a single relevant API -- iterating successors. There is no other interesting aspect shared -- the interface itself just dispatches to specific instructions to be implemented. On the flip side, CallInst and InvokeInst have *massive* amounts of code shared and struggle

While improving ADCE, i notice that for declare i32 @strlen(i8*) readnone define i32 @test() { ; invoke of pure function should not be deleted! invoke i32 @strlen( i8* null ) readnone to label %Cont unwind label %Other ; <i32>:1 [#uses=0] Cont: ; preds = %0 ret i32 0 Other: ; preds = %0 %exn = landingpad {i8*, i32} personality i32 (...)* @__gxx_personality_v0

I'm now writing a pass and I wanna ask a question about how to duplicate the function and add duplicated arguments in llvm, for example: func(int a, char *b) -> func(int a, char *b, int a1, char *b1) I'm now stuck at using "getOrInsertFunction" and how to handle "getArgumentList", please share your opinion, thanks a lot! James

> On May 17, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Going to keep this RFC short and to the point: > > TerminatorInst doesn't pull its weight in the type system. There is essentially a single relevant API -- iterating successors. There is no other interesting aspect shared -- the interface itself just dispatches to

+1, sounds like a great idea And if you're volunteering to do the work, even better! :) Philip p.s. Any reason we can't preserve a TerminatorInst type with an isa function which just returns true for all our terminators but without having terminators actually inherit from it?  If so, we preserve the bit of a "type safety" for a variable which is expected to always point to

Are there any instructions that aren't terminators now, but will become terminators with this change? I'm wondering if this is going to affect reading old bitcode, and if so, how it will be handled. -Krzysztof On 5/17/2018 4:03 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote: > Going to keep this RFC short and to the point: > > TerminatorInst doesn't pull its weight in the type

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:26 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On May 17, 2018, at 2:03 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Going to keep this RFC short and to the point: > > > > TerminatorInst doesn't pull its weight in the type system. There is >

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:32 AM Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Going to keep this RFC short and to the point: >> >> TerminatorInst doesn't pull its weight in the type system. There is >> essentially a single

Hi all, I am trying to write a pass where i am creating a clone of a function (the only difference being, the new function returns void , instead of any value). I am creating a new Function Type with a void return type (rest being the same as original function), and using this i am creating a new function body. Then, i clone the body of the old function into new function, but when ever i

Hi, this question might be a bit silly: apart from the language reference(http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#switch-instruction) page, are there additional rules for a regular llvm frontend to generate llvm IRs? There are a few cases that I got from clang/llvm-gcc/dragonegg when compiling *C* source code into llvm IR: 1. It seems that there is ONLY ONE ReturnInst(and NO InvokeInst) for such llvm

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:32 AM Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> Going to keep this RFC short and to the

Hi, I'm gonna try to give some feedback, but I have only been working with LLVM for a few days, so don't take what I'm saying without verifying :-) > BasicBlock *ProgSlicer::CloneBasicBlock(const BasicBlock *BB, > DenseMap<const Value*, Value*> &ValueMap, > const char *NameSuffix, Function *F) { > > BasicBlock

Hi everyone: The code I am analyzing is : int main() { int i = 0; printf("hello world!"); printf( "%d" , i ); } I want to get each place where printf is called, and the argument used during that call. so I write llvm pass code like: void Myfunction( Function & F){ for( Function::iterator b = F.begin() , be = F.end() ;

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Going to keep this RFC short and to the point: > > TerminatorInst doesn't pull its weight in the type system. There is > essentially a single relevant API -- iterating successors. There is no > other interesting aspect shared -- the interface itself just dispatches to

(and FWIW, I'm currently trying to finish the patch that makes this a reality... mostly hard because it has to unwind a loooot of complexity we've built up due to not having this) On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 5:47 PM Jeremy Lakeman via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/123407.html > > TLDR; CallInst & InvokeInst

Erick, After some experimentation, I'd prefer the closed system. LLVM has some type peculiarities like the commonality between CallInst and InvokeInst. I find that the closed type system lets me express such constraints more naturally. Expressing these constraints explicitly in the open system involves annotating the C++ class hierarchy with extra variants which are unnecessary in