similar to: [LLVMdev] insertions with inst_iterators?

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:38 PM, ret val <retval386 at gmail.com> wrote: > I am looping through all instructions in a Function and depending on > what I found I may or may not insert code. Despite the fact that I'm > only actually inserting *before* instruction I have a infinite loop > when I do something like below. For awhile it was simple enough to > just increment i

On Aug 29, 2011, at 12:38 PM, ret val wrote: > I am looping through all instructions in a Function and depending on > what I found I may or may not insert code. Despite the fact that I'm > only actually inserting *before* instruction I have a infinite loop > when I do something like below. For awhile it was simple enough to > just increment i enough times but now I need

When I'm iterating through I only directly add BitCastInsts and a single CallInst(Im assuming the functions I also created are elsewhere). Unfortunately it doesnt look like theres is a good way to convert between the the iterator I and a CallInst *. Am I missing something? Thanks On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:59 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > and since result of *it is considered to be rvalue it can't be accepted > > by this operator. The complete discussion is in > > > > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1385.htm > > > > I'd suggest to apply the following patch which makes operator* return >

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Yea, I've noticed that. However, it looks like inst_iterator is iterator over > pointers. Oh, wait a minite, that's the current code: > > inline IIty operator*() const { return BI; } > inline IIty operator->() const { return operator*(); } > > So operator* works as if value_type is Instruction*, but operator->

Hello, I think there's a rather subtle problem with the inst_iterator. It declares its iterator category as std::bidirectional_iterator_tag but C++ standard requirements for forward iterator (which are included in requirements for bidirection iterator), say that the type of expression *r; should be T&, where 'r' is the iterator and T is its value type. The inst_iterator,

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > and since result of *it is considered to be rvalue it can't be accepted by > this operator. The complete discussion is in > > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1385.htm > > I'd suggest to apply the following patch which makes operator* return > reference to pointer. It makes my code compile and the rest

I did a simple test just now, but I alse failed. I delete several ordered instructions from end to begin, but after deleting the first instruction(the last instruction of F), the program crashed. My test code is below (F is a function only containing several sequential instructions): for (inst_iterator inst == --inst_end(F); inst != inst_begin(F); --inst) { Instruction * i = &*inst;

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>

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, i want to get the address in memory of an instruction pointer and use it as a key in my tables. i iterate over the instructions in LLVM IR like this: for (Module::iterator fi = Mod->begin(), fi_end = Mod->end(); fi != fi_end; ++fi) { for (inst_iterator I = inst_begin(fi), E = inst_end(fi); I != E; ++I) { Instruction *ii = dyn_cast<Instruction>(&*I);

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

lucefe wrote: > I did a simple test just now, but I alse failed. > > I delete several ordered instructions from end to begin, > but after deleting the first instruction(the last instruction of F), > the program crashed. > My test code is below (F is a function only containing several > sequential instructions): > > for (inst_iterator inst == --inst_end(F); inst !=

In a pass I would like to insert a ICmpInst/BranchInst pair to check if 2 GlobalVariables are equal or not. If they are not I would like to call a function. I've tried splitting the current block and then inserting before the existing instructions, but for some reason this seems to ruin the iterator(i). What is the correct way todo something like this? void checkShadowPtr(Module &M,

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:32 AM, ihusar<ihusar at fit.vutbr.cz> wrote: >                //now i need to create an instruction that represents a call to a intrinsic >                Function* FIntr = Intrinsic::getDeclaration(&M, Intrinsic::regread_i32); > >                // here it fails: void llvm::CallInst::init(llvm::Value*): >                //Assertion

Hi everyone, I am trying to write a pass, that finds some instructions and replaces them with my intrinsics, but I am having problem understanding, how this should be done. Let's say I have this instruction: %tmp14 = load i32* getelementptr ([32 x i32]* @gpregs, i32 0, i64 28) and i need to read the load's operands and replace it by let's say: %tmp14 = call i32

On 2009-09-06 17:30, Ioannis Nousias wrote: > I've tried to write a DFGPrinter based on the CFGPrinter, as you > suggested, but encountered problems. > > The GraphWriter expects > GraphTraits<GraphType>::nodes_begin()/nodes_end(). The way this is > implemented in CFG.h, a function is a graph of basic blocks. A > GraphTraits<Function*> inherits from

On 2009-09-06 19:57, Ioannis Nousias wrote: > Edwin, > > thank you for your effort, but I'm not sure I understand. > Are you describing a graph traversal problem? Is the data model stored > in a predecessor/successor fashion, which requires you to 'walk' the > graph in order to visit all nodes? (and what happens when you have > disjointed DFGs?). Sorry for the

hi how can i write IRinstruction on a file.txt? when i use  {for(inst_iterator I = inst_begin(F), E = inst_end(F); I != E; ++I,count++)  IRcodefile << std::basic_ostream(*I) <<"\n" } i get  error. is there any way that i can write it on file? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Nov 23, 2007 5:29 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi, > > > I want to know how to dump the a instruction in gdb. I can dump a > Module > > use M.dump(), also is there any such print function which can be used in > gdb > > for a single instruction and its operand? > > you can dump most things in LLVM the same way as for a module: if I