similar to: [LLVMdev] Grabbing Result of an Instruction.

Thanks Michael. I wish to get Type of %1 i.e. result of instruction. Let me try out your suggestion. But It is still not clear to me how will dyn_cast will help here. I already have pointer to this particular instruction. On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Michael Ilseman <michael at lunarg.com> wrote: > In LLVM, %1 is the instruction itself. This is because LLVM IR is in > SSA, so the

In LLVM, %1 is the instruction itself. This is because LLVM IR is in SSA, so the "=" really means equality. If you look at a use of %1, e.g. as an operand to another instruction, you'll see that it's the instruction itself that is there (i.e. you can dyn_cast<Instruction> it). On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Manish Gupta <manishg at cs.ucsd.edu> wrote: > What

Thanks!!! James and Michael. yes now got the idea how it is working. Manish On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 7:59 AM, James Molloy <james.molloy at arm.com> wrote: > Hi Manish,**** > > ** ** > > As Michael mentioned, the Instruction is its own result.**** > > ** ** > > The Instruction class subclasses Value. If you treat the Instruction as a > Value you will get what

Thanks Everyone for the info. I am planning to work with DSA on llvm-2.9. Hope it is working as John mentioned. Manish On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:06 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 9/19/11 9:12 PM, Manish Gupta wrote: > > Dear All, > > I am curious to know the reason for removal of andersen pointer analysis. > Is it because of some issues? We

Hello All, What would be the best way to trace Value Dependency Chains in LLVM. Can I use some API to perform this? The use-def chain process mentioned at http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#iterate_chains will just get the values (Operands) being used in the current Instruction. For getting the values operands in the particular instruction are influenced from I have to recursively call

On 8/4/11 1:53 PM, Manish Gupta wrote: > It would be great help if someone can point me to similar code in > Analysis or Transform, i.e. tracing value dependencies chains. If I understand correctly, given an instruction I, you want to find its operands o1 through oN, and then find the instructions (or LLVM values) that generate the values o1 through oN, and then find the instructions

The README at the location shared by John says "DSA is undergoing significant changes and may not be entirely stable or correct. See lib/DSA/README" So, I was wondering from where should one pick the code. Although I will start my analysis and see how results turn out to be. But any comments on this line will be helpful. Thanks Manish On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Manish Gupta

It would be great help if someone can point me to similar code in Analysis or Transform, i.e. tracing value dependencies chains. Thanks, Manish On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Manish Gupta <manishg at cs.ucsd.edu> wrote: > Hello All, > > What would be the best way to trace Value Dependency Chains in LLVM. Can I > use some API to perform this? > > The use-def chain

Hey John, Yes this is what I am looking for. I wrote a code as I described in my first mail and I am getting desired result except when the chain encounters load instruction (you have also mentioned the that u skip loads). I think the recursive trace back for a Value V depending on Operands (o1,...oN) should terminate at the nearest definition of the oN (i.e. it is not an instruction but a LLVM

On 8/4/11 2:45 PM, Manish Gupta wrote: > Hey John, > > Yes this is what I am looking for. I wrote a code as I described in my > first mail and I am getting desired result except when the chain > encounters load instruction (you have also mentioned the that u skip > loads). Okay. Just out of curiosity, is your static slice local (stopping at function arguments) or

Hi All, I am facing an issue with CallInst with nested bitcast instruction. I want to check if the return type of a call is void or non-void the below line works well for CallInst without bit cast. *cast<CallInst>(I)->getCalledFunction()->getReturnType()->isVoidTy()* But for Call instructions like *call void bitcast (void (%struct.jpeg_compress_struct.131*, i32)*

Please reply-all so that the thread is kept on llvmdev. The LLVM Programmer's Manual has examples of how to iterate over many common structures, such as instructions in a basic block[1]. Other than that, you can check the source code or doxygen[2]. Basically, you loop over the instructions as detailed in the programmer's manual[1], and loop over the operands using User's

Hello everybody. I'm quite new to LLVM and I'm encontering problems with cloning basic blocks. My two basic blocks are in the same function and it doesn't really matter how the cloned one behave for the moment. Of course, to do so, I used the cloning.h 's method "CloneBasicBlock" but I have the "Instruction does not dominate all uses!" error. I know what it

I still have the addRequired: virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<DominatorTree>(); } The other line DominatorTree *dt = &getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(); Is for later use when I try to use PromoteMemToReg On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Michael Ilseman <michael at lunarg.com> wrote: > Something's

Spoke too soon... running the inst combine pass does seem to resolve the linker/inlining issue. But the resulting code fails to run correctly. I was expecting the same result that I get when running with unstripped modules, that is passing test runs. When it still failed, I guessed the failure mode to be the same, but it isn't. Not sure WHAT to make of this...

Thanks Michael. Can you please explain you way a bit more? Did you run a function pass then a loop pass? On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Michael Ilseman <michael at lunarg.com> wrote: > Whenever I was tying to do that (in version 2.8), it didn't give them > to me in a topological order. What I did, as a hack-ish temporary > measure, was rely on Function's ordering, and

On 11/8/11 4:34 PM, ret val wrote: > I still have the addRequired: > virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage&AU) const { > AU.addRequired<DominatorTree>(); > } > > The other line > DominatorTree *dt =&getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(); > Is for later use when I try to use PromoteMemToReg Isn't DominatorTree a

Awesome, that let me get far enough to trip: Assertion failed: (ResultPass && "Unable to find requested analysis info"), function getAnalysisID Is there something else I forgot? On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 5:47 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > On 11/8/11 4:34 PM, ret val wrote: >> >> I still have the addRequired: >>         virtual

Whenever I was tying to do that (in version 2.8), it didn't give them to me in a topological order. What I did, as a hack-ish temporary measure, was rely on Function's ordering, and just iterated over all the blocks in the function, checking to see if the loop contains that block. Not at all ideal, and what I was writing later evolved to not need the topological ordering constraint, so I

Hi all, I have a question about llvm::LoopBase getBlocks() method. Does it return the basic blocks inside the loop in random order? I need to order the blocks in some valid topological ordering of the AST. If getBlocks() does not do that, what can I do to find the ordering? Thanks, Naznin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: