similar to: [LLVMdev] How to identify LLVM version?

Kangkook Jee <aixer77 at gmail.com> writes: > Hi, all > > I'd like to write a code that can build different codes based on LLVM version. > Like code snippets in the below. > > #ifdef __LLVM_29__ > PHINode *PN = Builder.CreatePHI (Type::getDoubleTy(getGlobalContext()), 2, "iftmp"); > #elif __LLVM_28__ > PHINode *PN = Builder.CreatePHI

Hi, I have been trying to move some instructions between basic blocks , After looking at the API , I found llvm::Instruction::clone() but there is no result value for this. For example- source Basic block : continuation: ; preds = %else, %then %iftmp = phi i32 [ 5, %then ], [ 9, %else ] store i32 %iftmp, i32* %datasize ; 3 instructions below

Hello, I'm doing some Def/Use analysis, and I'm hung up on one tricky spot. The BB in question is attached. Ignore the red. The issue is that '%13 = load...' instruction does not show up as a Use for the '%scevgep25' definition, and I feel like it should. Instead, it shows up as a Use for '%iftmp.55.0 = select...', though Operand(0) for this '%13 =

I was trying to run the simplify CFG Pass in LLVM , and delete an unreachable basic block ("continuation" below ) after running one of my own IR transforms , but I keep getting the error - While deleting: i8* %g Use still stuck around after Def is destroyed: store i8 0, i8* %g I am well aware of what that means, but isn't the whole purpose of the "simplifyCFGPass" to

Hi All, I was wondering if there is an optimisation pass that moves a stack allocated array, initialised with constant values, to a global constant array. And if there is such a pass, what requirements are there for it to operate? My optimised IR is below. As you can see an array of 5 integers is created with alloca, then each element is stored to in turn. It would be nice if this array was

Here's an initial stab, but I'm not too happy about the temporarily adding new instructions then removing it because returning it will have it added back in to replace other uses. I also added a couple test cases pass with the new InstructionCombining changes (the old code only passes one of the added tests). Also, this change exposes some simplification for

Dear All, I have, in an LLVM bitcode program, the following phi node: %iftmp.225.0 = phi i8* [ getelementptr ([10 x i8]* @.str12597431, i32 0, i32 0), %bb114 ], [ getelementptr ([10 x i8]* @.str1258, i32 0, i32 0), %bb111 ], [ getelementptr ([10 x i8]* @.str1258, i32 0, i32 0), %bb111 ] This phi instruction has two arguments for the same incoming basic block. The only reason why it passes

On Sep 13, 2010, at 10:46 AM, John McCall wrote: > On Sep 13, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >>> I compiled with "llvm-gcc -emit-llvm test.c -S -o test.ll". >>> Attached to this >>> message are the source and the resulting ll output. >> >> compile with optimization. The llvm-gcc front-end "cheats" and >> stores/loads

Hello , I have build llvm from release_38 branch ( only llvm and clang ) and install it. My DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH points to installation-directory/lib. I am compiling example files for Kaleidoscope with following command : clang++ -g toy.cpp -std=c++11 `llvm-config --cxxflags --ldflags --system-libs --libs core mcjit native` -O3 -o toy but it fails with following error: Undefined symbols for

On Mar 17, 2009, at 11:37 AMPDT, John Criswell wrote: > Dear All, > > I have, in an LLVM bitcode program, the following phi node: > > %iftmp.225.0 = phi i8* [ getelementptr ([10 x i8]* @.str12597431, > i32 0, > i32 0), %bb114 ], [ getelementptr ([10 x i8]* @.str1258, i32 0, i32 > 0), > %bb111 ], [ getelementptr ([10 x i8]* @.str1258, i32 0, i32 0), > %bb111 ]

Hi, I have this piece of code: tm = local ? localtime(&curr) : gmtime(&curr); if (!tm) return NULL; which translates into something like: ---------------------------------------------- entry: %iftmp.0 = alloca %struct.tm*, align 8 %tm = alloca %struct.tm*, align 8 ... // Declares iftmp.0 as iftmp.0 call void @llvm.dbg.declare( { }* %iftmp.0, { }* bitcast

Hi, all I wonder whether I can preserve basic blocks of llvm-bc when it is compiled to the target(x86) binary. for instance, #llc --march=x86 test1.bc -o test1.s #llvm-gcc -O0 -o test1 test1.s then, can BBs from output binary of 'test1' find their correspondents from 'test1.bc' and vice versa? What I eventually want to find out is 1-1 mapping of BBs between llvm-bc and

Hi all, I'm trying to implement a floating-point 'min' and 'max' operation using select. For 'min' I get the expected x86 assembly minss instruction, but for 'max' I get a branch instead of maxss. The corresponding C syntax code looks like this: float z = (x > y) ? x : y; Any clues? Could someone maybe explain to me the basics of

instcombine can handle certain orders of "icmp"s that are "or"ed together: x != 5 OR x > 10 OR x == 8 becomes.. x != 5 OR x == 8 becomes.. x != 5 However, a different ordering prevents the simplification: x == 8 OR x > 10 OR x != 5 becomes.. %or.eq8.gt10 OR x != 5 and that can't be simplified because we now have an "or" OR "icmp". What would I

On Sep 13, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >> I compiled with "llvm-gcc -emit-llvm test.c -S -o test.ll". Attached to this >> message are the source and the resulting ll output. > > compile with optimization. The llvm-gcc front-end "cheats" and stores/loads all > values to/from memory, avoiding the need to construct phi nodes; instead it lets >

Hi Óscar, > To the developers: maybe it is a good idea to define something like > LLVM_MAJOR_VERSION and LLVM_MINOR_VERSION ? Preferably in llvm-config.h probably it's best to just go ahead and implement this (with PACKAGE_VERSION being auto-computed from these) and see if anyone objects :) Ciao, Duncan.

I'm attempting to modify a parser generator to emit LLVM code instead of C. So far the experience has been trivial, but I am now running into an error regarding labels that I can't seem to solve. Situation 1: A label is used immediately after a void function call (l6 in this case): <snip> %tmp26 = load i32* @yybegin, align 4 %tmp27 = load i32* @yyend, align 4 call void

On Sep 13, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote: > On Sep 13, 2010, at 10:46 AM, John McCall wrote: >> On Sep 13, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >>>> I compiled with "llvm-gcc -emit-llvm test.c -S -o test.ll". Attached to this >>>> message are the source and the resulting ll output. >>> >>> compile with optimization. The

Hi all, When compiling some programs using the Mips backend i'm getting this assert message on lib/CodeGen/LiveInterval.cpp:227: "Range is not entirely in interval!" I don't know yet if it's something that is missing on the backend code or why the range to be removed it outside the interval, does anyone have any clue? A more detailed output is attached. The program i tried

Hi, all I want to know how a llvm pass output constant char array defined from the input source. Here's an example that I want to do. == test input source == char* msg = "hello, world\n"; void msg_out(char * in) { printf("msg: %s \n", in); } main () { ... msg_out(msg); ... } == llvm pass snippet == ... const CallInst* ci =