similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM Instruction Operands

On Jun 2, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Griffin Wright wrote: > > Hello all: > > I apologize for what I imagine is a rather silly question, but I'm still > somewhat new to LLVM and am stuck. I am reworking some code that was > originally in the backend involving MachineInstructions and > MachineOperands, and I now need for it to function as an LLVM IR pass, > using just

Hello, I've been hung up on some issues for several weeks now, and some of them seem to stem from GetElementPtr instructions. Say we have a Definition: *%29 = getelementptr inbounds [10 x i32]* @c, i32 0, i32 %28* Now, I'd like to see the uses of that definition. In my code, I do this twice, in slightly different ways. This first method works and shows instructions that use %29:

Oh, no. I should have been more clear. The patch was not rejected, just lost in the daily shuffle. I already have my employer's approval to send this upstream, so I will prepare a patch against trunk this morning. > I proposed a similar patch to LLVM (left circular shift) around 10/2011. > > Parts of my patch did make it into trunk about a year after, but others > > did not.

On Monday, July 30, 2012 12:16 AM, Cameron McInally wrote: > Hey Andy, > > I proposed a similar patch to LLVM (left circular shift) around 10/2011. > Parts of my patch did make it into trunk about a year after, but others > did not. > > At that time, my solution was to add a binary operator to the IRBuilder, > since LCS fits in nicely with the other shift operators. But,

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 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 all, I have a question regarding a transformation that is carried out in InstCombine, which has been introduced by r48715. It unfolds expressions of the form `zext(or(icmp, (icmp)))` to `or(zext(icmp), zext(icmp)))` to expose pairs of `zext(icmp)`. In a subsequent iteration these `zext(icmp)` pairs could then (possibly) be optimized by another optimization (which has already been there before

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>

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

Hi all, I have a very simple test case (thanks to bugpoint) that hit an assert in reassociate. (the assert is (C->getType()->isIntOrIntVectorTy() && "Cannot NEG a nonintegral value!"), function getNeg) The function is taking a Constant as argument, but the assert does not expect an undef. I’m not sure whose responsibility is it to handle that (caller?). Do we have to

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 =

I now understand that IndVarSimplify.cpp is capable of reproducing array references when the pointer initialization from the array address is found inside the immediately enclosing loop, such that in the following code: int A[20000], B[100], Z; int main() { int i, j, *a, *b; for ( a = &A[0], i = 0; i != 200; i++ ) for ( b = &B[0], j = 0; j != 100; j++

Hi Bill, Thanks a lot for your response.But my problem still remains.The thing is i am having a data type std::vector<Value*> as i am checking for the variables in Store Instructions and Malloc Instructions.For store the case is straightforward as discussed earlier.I want the same Value* variable for malloc inst as well. bcos i cannot have a different set for only instructions. can there be

Thanks for reply. I have used AllocaInst, it's working but i think it's only for allocating some memory for new variable. And CallInst creates a call instruction. I am looking for creating a add or sub instruction. I used function instruction(), which gives me error "error: cannot allocate an object of abstract type ‘llvm::Instruction’" and also "Instruction.h:28: note:

On Oct 20, 2012, at 3:37 PM, Vincent Lejeune <vljn at ovi.com> wrote: > #5 0x00000000010c8e83 in (anonymous namespace)::JoinVals::getAssignments (this=0x7fffffffd230) at RegisterCoalescer.cpp:1305 Does this fix it? diff --git a/lib/CodeGen/RegisterCoalescer.cpp b/lib/CodeGen/RegisterCoalescer.cpp index ba6b456..2ca67d6 100644 --- a/lib/CodeGen/RegisterCoalescer.cpp +++

Hi Sanjay, thank you a lot for your answer. I understand that in your examples it is desirable that `foo` and `goo` are canonicalized to the same IR, i.e., something like `@goo`. However, I still have a few open questions, but please correct me in case I'm thinking in the wrong direction. > Am 21.07.2016 um 18:51 schrieb Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com>: > > I've

Is there an easy way to get the MVT::ValueType of a MachineInstruction MachineOperand? For example, the register operand of an x86 MOVAPD should have an MVT::ValueType of v2f64. A MOVAPS register operand should have an MVT::ValueType of v4f32. So given a MachineInstruction and its MachineOperands is there some easy way to derive this information? I don't see anything in TargetInstrInfo

Hello, I'm trying to compile vmkit on a x86_64 linux box with gcc-4.1.2, but I'm running into troubles because of various problems with casts between pointers and integers. Is there anybody who succeeded in this task? Az I see, some of the problems can be fixed with an appropriate typedef/macro declaration, but in VMCore/JavaObject.cpp some lowlevel bitmanipulation is used, to mark

Hi Chris, Would it be better to split add into multiple opcodes instead of using SubclassData bits? Compare this: switch (I->getOpcode()) { case Instruction::Add: { switch (cast<Add>(I)->getOverflowBehavior()) { case AddInstruction::Wrapping: // ... case AddInstruction::UndefinedSigned: // ... case

help__me_please wrote: > Thanks for reply. > I have used AllocaInst, it's working but i think it's only for allocating > some memory for new variable. And CallInst creates a call instruction. I am > looking for creating a add or sub instruction. > > I used function instruction(), which gives me error "error: cannot allocate > an object of abstract type