similar to: [LLVMdev] replace a conditional branch with unconditional branch

Hi, I'm learning to use the llvm API, but I got a question for which I haven't found a good answer yet: What is the best way to turn an unconditional branch into a conditional branch? All I want to do is add two more operands, a successor and a condition. But no matter how I try to do this any one of setCondition()/setOperand()/setSuccessor() causes an assertion like these: Cannot

Hi all, Somewhat of a newbie's question, hope you can help me out. I'm trying to turn unconditional BranchInst's into conditional ones (with a condition I'm supplying) branching between the original target and a basic block of my choice. Apparently the way to do that is to create a new conditional BranchInst and remove the unconditional one from its basic block. However when

Hi , I want to create a bc file by llvm-gcc, and need to pass a input file when create this file, how can i do it?I saw options in "llvm-gcc [options] filename" but it could not help me. I have an another problem too. my program contains some C file , that main function use those, but i don't know how create bc file with regard to other file.  tanks, -------------- next part

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Rahil Rahimian <rahil_rahimian at yahoo.com>wrote: > Hi , > > I want to create a bc file by llvm-gcc, and need to pass a input file when > create this file, > how can i do it?I saw options in "*llvm-gcc* [*options*] *filename" but > it could not help me.* > > llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -c foo.c -o foo.bc > ** > *I have an

In a GLMM, one compares the conditional model including covariates with the unconditional model to see whether the conditional model fits the data better. (1) For my unconditional model, a different random effects term fits better (independent random effects) than for my conditional model (correlated random effects). Is this very uncommon, and how can this be explained? Can I compare these models

Hello guys, Do we have a pass to do unconditional branch folding except the one in Codegen? I checked in the lib/Transforms/Scalar, did not see any promising one. thank you, yuanfang

This email is related with the code of commit: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120409/140650.html. This commit will let our unconditional branch instruction not be deleted when its successor is the nature layout and its basic block's instruction only one instruction. However, I have some concerns about it, especially in the debug mode. Let me show you some

Hi there, Could anyone please help me to understand what should be done in order not to get this error message: Error: evaluation nested too deeply: infinite recursion / options(expressions=)? Here is my code: determinant<- function(x){det(matrix(c(1.0,0.2,0.5,0.8,0.2,1.0,0.5,0.6,0.5,0.5,0.5,1.0,x,0.8,0.6,x,1.0),ncol=4,byrow=T))} matrix<-

Hi all, I want to analyze memory dependence in the loop and to obtain set of memory dependence of an instruction in the loop. Can  anyone assist me in this topic? Regards, Rahil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111103/1e039510/attachment.html>

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:

I'm analyzing the basic blocks of MachineInstructions that LLVM generates for my TargetMachine to try to reconstruct high-level flow control. I misunderstood the isTerminator property of an instruction to mean that it had to be at the end of a basic block, but now I've seen blocks that end with a conditional branch followed by an unconditional branch. I'm sure this depends

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Then that flow would be explicit in the CFG, right? Then %F wouldn't > be dead, I'm assuming. Right. That's why I used a conditional branch after the intrinsic, but it sounds like the CFG simplification pass after lowering will optimize it away and no longer have the flow explicit. (To the

Hi Jeff, > Are you sure this is really advantageous? '%c' is only one variable, but when > you add the constant propagation, '%c' and false/true are two different > variables. Thus the example was explanatory, not typical. In fact I didn't ever see returns being split like this in practice. What I do see typically is branches being eliminated. For example,

On Oct 15, 2008, at 11:38 AMPDT, Daniel M Gessel wrote: > I'm analyzing the basic blocks of MachineInstructions that LLVM > generates for my TargetMachine to try to reconstruct high-level flow > control. > > I misunderstood the isTerminator property of an instruction to mean > that it had to be at the end of a basic block, but now I've seen > blocks that end with a

Then I misunderstood it's purpose. I see now that constant propagation could remove branches because you know a value is true. I was looking at the problem through my 'register allocator' lens. Here is a more expressive example of what you are doing. define i1 @t1(i1 %c) { br i1 %c, label %t, label %f t: br i1 %c, label %t2, label %f2 t2: code... ret something f2: code...

Hello All I am looking for an LLVM pass that is able to detect branches whose condition is known if they are reached. To illustrate what I mean, I attached a screenshot showing a partial CFG of a function. The branch in basic block for.cond.cleanup3 tests the same condition as the branch in the entry block, and has the same target BB if the condition is false. Also, if you inspect the graph

Hello, I have a univariate data set, and the unconditional variance is 1. I would like to fit a GARCH(1,1) model to the data set with a constraint: \omega (the constant parameter in GARCH(1,1)) is equal to 1-\alpha-\beta. So the unconditional variance can be controled to be \omega /(1-\alpha-\beta) = 1. I was using garchFit (fGARCH package) but did not find the way to control. Any help?

I want to pass a input file to foo.c that contains a picture. how can do it? llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -c foo.c -o foo.bc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111202/43aec39e/attachment.html>

While reviewing a fix for maintaining loop metadata (http://reviews.llvm.org/D5539) I noticed that we make a strict assumption about the metadata being attached to the branch that is an immediate predecessor of the loop header. This does not work well with LLVM's approach of lazy critical edge splitting. I've proposed working around this with heroics inside the critical edges splitting

I think you can refer to lib/VMCore/AsmWriter.cpp for these things. E.g., You can use 'if(I.isTerminator())' if a instruction 'I' is terminator. You can use 'if (isa<BranchInst>(I))' if a instruction 'I' is 'br' instruction. and so on... Thx, Seung Jae Lee ---- Original message ---- >Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 17:15:00 -0400 (EDT) >From: abhi232