similar to: [LLVMdev] Question about local variables

Ryan Taylor wrote: > It looks like the AsmWriter is generating the local variables (SlotNum)s > on the fly in that file (AsmWriter.cpp), so is there any way at all to > get this information from the operation itself, via Instruction, Value > or Type? Nope! As you noticed, they're created on the fly... ...when the Value or Type is anonymous. If you want them to be persistent,

Ryan Taylor wrote: > Nick, > > Unfortunately this doesn't answer my question I don't think. It > seems that -instnamer, as you mention, names the instructions but still > does not name the local variables. What other local variables are you referring to? When AsmWriter prints "%y = add i32 %x, 1", the name of that add instruction is "y" and

Nick, Unfortunately this doesn't answer my question I don't think. It seems that -instnamer, as you mention, names the instructions but still does not name the local variables. So there really is no way to do this shy of creating (or basically copying) the API from AsmWriter (seems very dedundant to me)? This seems like a large failing? On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Nick

Nick, Is there a clean way to tell the difference between dst and src operands in operations without assignment "=" (ie, store)? On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > Nick, > > I forgot to thank you, thanks! > > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > >> Ryan

Ryan Taylor wrote: > Nick, > > Also, I forgot to mention I had no luck with instnamer, it still left > the local variables as "%slotNum", it didn't name them, unless I used > -instnamer wrong: > > opt -instnamer <file.bc> file2.bc Almost, use -o to specify output: opt -instnamer file.bc -o file2.bc > Those are the ones I am refering to. The

Ryan Taylor wrote: > Nick, > > Ah, forgot the -o, thanks, silly mistake. > > So how would you extract "add" from the instruction "%A"? I->getOpcodeName(). > Yes, this is sort of what I am trying to do. The instnamer works fine > for the local variables and I already had the constants sorted out. Great! Nick > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at

[please remember to cc llvmdev] On 24 October 2011 13:20, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > Nick, > > Thanks, this is not really viable as I'd have to check every single > instruction like this, seems like there is a lot of overhead associated with > this solution. I don't know what problem you're solving? Nick On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:48 AM,

On 24 October 2011 15:50, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > Nick, > > Oh, sorry. So there are lots of "void" operations, I basically just want > to print out the operation name, it's dest operands and source operands, What's a dest operand? The term "operand" in LLVM always refers to the inputs (ie., an add has two operands). >

Hello Xen Users, Been experimenting with upstream-qemu and wanted to try out the OVMF bios option, but I seem to be missing something. Are there additional steps to installing OVMF beyond compiling Xen? I saw notes on patching back in february, but I thought the package was included with Xen 4.2 on release. When I attempt to set it as my bios option, the machine boots then immediately closes.

hi, my code inherits InstVisitor class, and visitBranchInst() method. however, i notice that inside the virtual method visitBranchInst(BranchInst &I), on the LLVM instruction like: br i1 %1, label %2, label %3 my code doesnt return expected info. for ex, the code I.getCondition->getName().str() would return empty string. and at the same time, the code I.getSuccessor(0)->getName()

I just updated my llvm sources (revision 164794.) and I see the error, "overriding non-deleted function" when building with gcc 4.7.0 and passing -std=c++11. /usr2/sidneym/llvm/tools/install/bin/c++ -D_GNU_SOURCE -D_DEBUG -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -D__STDC_FORMAT_MACROS -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -std=c++11 -fPIC -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -I/local/scratch/llvm-tmp/build/lib/VMCore

I've fixed this specific error in r164813. Please let me know if there are more behind it. On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Sid Manning <sidneym at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > I just updated my llvm sources (revision 164794.) and I see the error, > "overriding non-deleted function" when building with gcc 4.7.0 and passing > -std=c++11. > >

I am trying to parse LLVM IR from a bit code file. I went through the following steps. hello.cpp #include <iostream> int main() { std::cout << "Hello world!" << "\n"; return 0;} dump.cpp #include <llvm/IR/Module.h>#include <llvm/IRReader/IRReader.h>#include <llvm/IR/LLVMContext.h>#include <llvm/Support/SourceMgr.h> using

Hi, Op 18-mei-07, om 10:10 heeft Tanya M. Lattner het volgende geschreven: >> On Slackware 10.2 (GCC 3.3.6), I got an error during a debug build >> with the header files using uintptr_t (not recognised as a type). >> Putting "#include <stdint.h>" in include/llvm/BasicBlock.h (llvm) >> and in "include/llvm/ValueSymbolTable.h" (frontend)

Hi guys Is some one able to explain me, why these errors emerge: gmake[2]: Entering directory `/usr/local/src/llvm/lib/VMCore' Compiling AsmWriter.cpp AsmWriter.cpp: In function `void WriteConstantInt(std::ostream&, const llvm::Constant*, bool, std::map<const llvm::Type*, std::string, std::less<const llvm::Type*>, std::allocator<std::pair<const llvm::Type* const,

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Reid Spencer wrote: > I have a "first version" of Stacker up and running. Structurally its a > lot like llvm-as. When I run it, I get: > Leaked objects found: after running pass 'Function Pass Manager' > LLVM Value subclasses leaked: This is coming from the LLVM "LeakDetector" stuff. The idea is that you are not supposed to create

No, Chris, I'm not buying that argument, due to I've tweaked /usr/include/types.h a little bit, so the configuration and compilation of the cfrontend would be correct: /* * 64bit type for BSD compatability */ #ifdef __GNUC__ typedef long long int quad_t; typedef unsigned long long int u_quad_t; typedef long long int int64_t; typedef unsigned long long int u_int64_t;

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Henrik Bach wrote: > This tweak seems to work. > > As far as I can see, correct me if I'm wrong, it is the compiler, that can't > figure out which std::basic_ostream to use. Why? What I'm saying is that it appears that your implementation of operator<< is not functional or is missing. You said that you are using GCC on internix. Is it possible

Update: I've reverted the assembly parser change so that "implementation" will be accepted. This is to provide a grace period for you to update your .ll files. Please remove the use of implementation in your .ll files as this keyword will disappear in < 1 week. Note that the AsmWriter will not generate this keyword any more. Reid. On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 11:21 -0700, Reid

All, Just a note to let yo know that CVS Head has been changed so that the AsmParser no longer recognizes the "implementation" keyword and AsmWriter no longer generates it. The grammar has changed to require the "define" keyword for function definitions which obviates the need for the implementation keyword. This has been the case for a couple months now, but we never removed