similar to: [LLVMdev] Confusion with a Use of a getelementptr instruction being a Use of a select instruction instead

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

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 (Type::getDoubleTy(getGlobalContext()), "iftmp"); #else assert ("wrong

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 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'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

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:

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

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

Hello, I'm working with a pass that operates at the LLVM IR level. I need to run some statistics on instructions that access memory, and I'm wondering, at the IR level, which instructions aside from Load and Store access memory directly as a result of their operation? I know on an ISA level, this varies from arch to arch, but I'm wondering how LLVM has this set up at the IR level.

  Hi r-users,   I would like to use gev and my data (annual rainfall ) is as follows:   > head(dat,20) A B C D E F G H I J 1 45.1 41.5 58.5 50.1 46.0 49.1 37.7 49.1 59.8 54.0 2 50.3 39.8 49.4 56.4 49.4 48.8 42.1 49.8 49.4 58.3 3 41.7 39.3 44.6 39.1 35.7 41.5 40.8 40.8 38.5 45.6 4 50.7 33.9 48.4 28.2 35.5 39.1 61.4 17.0 30.7 38.3 5 39.3 30.6 46.9 23.8 25.8

I am doing a reanalysis of results that have previously been published. My hope was to demonstrate the value of adoption of more modern regression methods in preference to the traditional approach of univariate stratification. I have encountered a puzzle regarding differences between I thought would be two equivalent analyses. Using a single factor, I compare poisson models with and without

Dear users, I have several columns of data (each column containing monthly data for a particular year from january - december) . I would wish to combine the columns to get a Single column of continuous data as shown in (b) below. I have read this data as table in R (a) Data example Year 1903 1904 1905 1906 Jan 125.0 30.0 113.0 5.0 Feb 128.0 100.0 70.0 388.0

Dear friends, when i use glm() to fit my data, i use glm(formula = snail ~ vegtype + mhveg + humidity + elevation + soiltem, *family = Gamma(link = inverse),* data =a,)) It shows: error in eval(expr, envir, enclos) : *gamma distribution don't allow negative value*. But i use result<-glm(formula = snail ~ vegtype + mhveg + humidity + elevation + soiltem, family = poisson, data =a) #this

Y X Z 42.0 7.0 33.0 33.0 4.0 41.0 75.0 16.0 7.0 28.0 3.0 49.0 91.0 21.0 5.0 55.0 8.0 31.0 data<-read.table("d.txt",header=TRUE) mod<-lm(data$Y~data$X+data$Z) --------------------------------------- I would like to know the predict value at a new level, say X=10 Z=30 Is there a function available to calculate it

Hi, I just updated my image from CVS, compiled and reinstalled it. Now whenever I make calls from my Grandstream phone to my X-Lite soft-phone, the call does not complete correctly. Scenario: 1. I take the GS off hook and dial 1100 (the extension of the x-lite phone). 2. The x-lite phone rings properly. 3. The user at the x-lite site answers the call. 4. The GS phone continues to