similar to: [LLVMdev] Getting Metadata

Hi, I have a question about the llvm passes. I'm iterating over a basicblock and I can get an instruction and print it. Now, I want to iterate over the instruction and be able to modify the values of the instruction. For example, if my instruction is an add "<result> = add i32 4, %var" I want to transform it in a sub "<result> = sub i32 4, %var". I looked up

Hello group, Per my posting on the Clang Newsgroup. I'm interested in doing some loop optimizations, towards this end I would like to add some custom Metadata to a Loop header. Loops in LLVM are represented using BasicBlocks, but unfortunately you can NOT add MetaData to a BasicBlock. Although you can add Metadata to an instruction. So I'm proposing to add the Metadata manipulation

Hi, I added metadata support for the stdinpcm module of ices. The metadata have to be submitted via file (as stdin is already used for the strem). Please apply this patch to the current cvs sources. <p>Deti <p> Index: im_stdinpcm.c =================================================================== RCS file: /usr/local/cvsroot/ices/src/im_stdinpcm.c,v retrieving revision 1.8 diff

> On 2015 Apr 14, at 21:46, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith > <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >> >> `Function` definitions should support `MDNode` attachments, with a >> similar syntax to instructions: >> >> define void @foo() nounwind !attach !0 { >>

> On 2015 Apr 15, at 10:06, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:59 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > > On 2015 Apr 14, at 21:46, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith > > <dexonsmith at

> On 2015-Apr-15, at 08:59, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > Conventional wisdom, which is often wrong, says that bytes in Function are precious. In the past we've bent over backwards to put bits on Function and have DenseMaps in LLVMContexts and Modules. I think this is probably the *wrong* approach for debug info, which, when it's being used, is used

Hello everyone, please I need your help. To reproduce my problem I created simple pass for backends (TestPass.cpp in attached files). That pass I call from Mips backend in this way (MipsTargetMachine.cpp): bool MipsPassConfig::addPreRegAlloc() { addPass(createTestPass()); return false; } The problem becomes, when I am trying compile file ldtoa.ll (in attached files). Compiling

This change renames the following 2 apis: * mdadm_create -> md_create * mdadm_detail -> md_detail This is more consistent with list_md_devices, and removes a reference to an implementation detail from the api. --- daemon/md.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------ generator/generator_actions.ml | 4 ++-- regressions/test-list-filesystems.sh | 2 +-

> On Mar 2, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com <mailto:dnovillo at google.com>> wrote: > > I've created a few bugzilla issues with details of some of the things I'll be looking into. I'm not yet done wordsmithing the overall design document.