similar to: [LLVMdev] AliasAnalysis and memory dependency

Hi neda 8664, > I want to find memory dependency between CallInst instruction and other. So i > used the following code: > > > > / AliasAnalysis &AA=getAnalysis<AliasAnalysis>();/ > > /*if* (isa< StoreInst >(inst1)){ / > > // // /*if* (isa<CallInst>(inst2)) / /{/ > > / CallInst *call_inst2= dyn_cast<CallInst>(inst2); /

i am sorry, i get this error: opt: /home/llvm/src/include/llvm/Support/CallSite.h:87: ValTy* llvm::CallSiteBase<FunTy, ValTy, UserTy, InstrTy, CallTy, InvokeTy, IterTy>::getCalledValue() const [with FunTy = const llvm::Function, ValTy = const llvm::Value, UserTy = const llvm::User, InstrTy = const llvm::Instruction, CallTy = const llvm::CallInst, InvokeTy = const llvm::InvokeInst, IterTy =

Hi Eli, Thanks for the link! I'm able to compile a standalone pass outside of the source tree, and I'm obviously ably to compile analysis groups inside the source tree. However, the problem comes when I try to do what the tutorial suggests to create an analysis group outside of the source tree. My understanding is that building out of tree requires different methods to register the

I have been looking over the doxygen documentation as well as the llvm code. Is there a standard way to check to see if two instructions are identical (i.e., Inst1 == Inst2 does not work)? Thanks, Brian Brian M. Fahs Graduate Student University of Illinois

On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 02:13:04PM -0600, Tanya Brethour wrote: > > I have been looking over the doxygen documentation as well as the > > llvm code. Is there a standard way to check to see if two > > instructions are identical (i.e., Inst1 == Inst2 does not work)? > > If you want to check if two instructions are the same instruction, you > should be able to just

Hi James, Thanks for your quick reply. > I assume because you asked this question, something went wrong when using the above method. What was it? :) No, I am not using this method. I was trying to create a llvm::GetElementPtrInst . I didn't create IRBuilder. I am writing a ModulePass that insert new instruction to an existing Module. Besides, how can you get a reference to myreg1 ?

Thanks for the quick reply, Owen. I went through the code in MemoryDependenceAnalysis.cpp again. Since DenseMap<BasicBlock*, Value*> maps a BasicBlock to a single Value (Instruction) and it is populated by a DFS on the reverse Control Flow Graph starting at the query instruction's block, is it correct to say that the last dependent instruction in each visited basic block is what is

> I have been looking over the doxygen documentation as well as the llvm > code. Is there a standard way to check to see if two instructions are > identical (i.e., Inst1 == Inst2 does not work)? If you want to check if two instructions are the same instruction, you should be able to just compare pointers. -Tanya

After a long tale of sorrow and woe, my colleagues and I stand here before you defeated. The Itanium EH representation is not amenable to implementing MSVC-compatible exceptions. We need a new representation that preserves information about how try-catch blocks are nested. WinEH background ------------------------------- Skip this if you already know a lot about Windows exceptions. On Windows,

On 24 June 2014 01:55, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > On 06/19/2014 09:35 AM, Yi Kong wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I'm currently working on implementing ACLE extensions for ARM. There >> are some memory barrier intrinsics, i.e.__dsb and __isb that require >> the compiler not to reorder instructions around their

Hi, for some temporary debugging I wanted to know what sort of Value I was seeing, and I ran across this comment in Value.h - it's probably a minor point, but unless I'm missing something I think either the last line of the comment is wrong or the code is. It appears in rev 1.58, as part of fixing bug 122. 00134 /// getValueType - Return an ID for the concrete type of this object.

I'm posting this message in charge of Denis MARS (France), because he is not a subscriber of teh list and I worked with him about the same problem. Domenico Viggiani ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hello, I worked on this problem since three weeks and now i really give up. Clearly i can't go further without your help. I hesitate to send you this bug

It appears dereferencing the use iterator returned the "user" in older LLVM versions. See the following commit to Use.h. You can see that the intention is to return the "user". So this is not the behavior anymore. https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/commit/d1fe495464e4abc384565813cbf1cb8b130e5a6d - // Retrieve a pointer to the current User.- UserTy *operator*() const {-

On Jul 28, 2008, at 3:47 PM, Prakash Prabhu wrote: > Hi, > > I have a question about the memory dependence analysis. I am trying > to use it to selectively enumerate a set of pairs of (load, store) > instructions for every function by calling getNonLocalDependency() > on the MemoryDependenceAnalysis. This populates a > DenseMap<BasicBlock*, Value*>. I just

Hi, You'd use an IRBuilder, like you did to create your LoadInsts. IRBuilder<> IRB(BB); IRB.CreateGEP(myreg1, myreg2); I assume because you asked this question, something went wrong when using the above method. What was it? :) Cheers, James ________________________________________ From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Eduardo [erocha.ssa

Hi, I have a question about the memory dependence analysis. I am trying to use it to selectively enumerate a set of pairs of (load, store) instructions for every function by calling getNonLocalDependency() on the MemoryDependenceAnalysis. This populates a DenseMap<BasicBlock*, Value*>. I just looked up an usage of this in GVN.cpp: MD->getNonLocalDependency(C, deps); for

Hi all, How can I create an llvm::GetElementPtrInst in which the pointer and the index are in registers previously loaded with llvm::LoadInst ? I mean, the generated instruction will be like this: %1 = getelementptr i8* %myreg1, i32 %myreg2 here, %myreg1 and %myreg2 are previously created by load instructions (llvm::LoadInst). Please, let me know if there is an example of something similar.

Forgive me if these questions are naive or if I'm misunderstanding something. I'm certainly very interested in seeing the MachineCopyPropagation patch finally land and stick. 1. Wouldn't function live-ins and reserved registers have started life as physical registers already? For example, wouldn't a live-in be a copy from a physical register to a virtual one allowing the flag to

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> wrote: > I like the way this sorts out with regard to funclet code generation. > It feels very natural for Windows EH, though obviously not as natural for > non-Windows targets and I think it is likely to block some optimizations > that are currently possible with those targets. > Right, it will

Hi Everyone, For your consideration: A proposal to improve regression test support for RuntimeDyld. Short version: We can make RuntimeDyld far more testable by adding a trivial pointer-expression language that allows us to describe how memory should look post-relocation. Jump down to "The Proposal" for details. Long version: Background: For those unfamiliar with it, RuntimeDyld a