similar to: [LLVMdev] Accessing Return Variable Names

Hi John, %4 is not returned, because it's a temp register value and not a named variable. But you can implement something like the code below to get this value. (Not the most elegant, but more or less working solution). static std::string getName(Instruction* i) { if(i->getOpcode() == Instruction::Store) { return

Hi John, Welcome, and this is a frequent newbie question: in LLVM names are more for human readability of the code, they are not really used as references internally. Instead engine operates instructions, which could be "used by" or "user of" other instructions (see use_iterator of Value.h). Also the Function class has an iterator of BasicBlocks, and each BasicBlock has an

> Welcome, and this is a frequent newbie question: [...] If not already there, could you find an appropriate place to put this in the documentation? --Sean Silva On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Dmitry N. Mikushin <maemarcus at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi John, > > Welcome, and this is a frequent newbie question: in LLVM names are > more for human readability of the code, they

Hello, I'm trying to setup Samba 4 alpha 4 with OpenLDAP. I'm following this wiki page to setup http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba4/LDAP_Backend/OpenLDAP When Preparing the OpenLDAP backend, I get an error (I didn't get this error with alpha 3). $ cd .../source $ ./setup/provision-backend --realm=TEST.XXXX.COM --domain=TEST

Hello, I was wondering how you can identify whether or not an Argument is a pointer. The "isDereferenceablePointer" function for Values doesn't seem to be what I want (I don't care whether or not the pointer points to allocated memory or is suitably aligned). I want to be able to discern between: i32* %pArray and i32 %pArray Thanks in advance. - John

You can use isPointerTy() in Type class. George On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:39 PM, John Backes <back0145 at umn.edu> wrote: > Hello, > > I was wondering how you can identify whether or not an Argument is a > pointer. The "isDereferenceablePointer" function for Values doesn't > seem to be what I want (I don't care whether or not the pointer points > to

Hello all, Is there an easy way to get the human-readable opcode mnemonic (e.g., "MOV32ri64", "CMP32ri8", "JLE_1") for a MachineInstr? I am writing a backend analysis pass for security research, where the idea is for a researcher to examine the output of my pass and identify instructions from it for use in an attack. Right now I'm representing unique

Hi Lang, Thanks for your reply! It seems that the code of ORC has been changed a lot these months. Actually what I wanted to see then was quite simple, Let's say we have two modules M1.bc and M2.bc, and in M1 we want to call function foo(defined in M2.bc)with the function type int foo(float, char*){...} what basic steps do I need to do to make M1.bc call foo remotely? BTW, does the

ivtm wrote: > Hey Oscar, > > I want to extract information from the instruction. > > Think writing a simple interpreter. > > I already have the CallInst instance (described above in the message). > > Via ci->getOperand(1) say I can get the 'i32 8' parameter and I can get the > 'i32' and '8' separately as Nick described. > > But I

Hello, I'm a newbie in LLVM. Now I'm trying to implement a pass that does some simple form of dynamic dataflow analysis. In my dataflow analysis I want to know if a specific variable is "dependent" on another one. "Dependent" means the following: if we have three variables in a program - a, b and c and in some places of this program we have the following

Thanks for the pointers. Am I correct in assuming that putting the precompiled bitcode into a second module and linking (or using the object caches) would result in ordinary function calls, but would not be able to inline the functions? -- lg On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:55 AM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> wrote: > I would say that the incompatibility is by design. Not

V4 was here (incorrectly versioned on the mailing list as v3): <http://mid.mail-archive.com/20230323121016.1442655-1-lersek at redhat.com>. See the Notes section on each patch for the v5 updates. Laszlo Ersek (2): socket activation: generalize environment construction socket activation: set LISTEN_FDNAMES Richard W.M. Jones (2): common/include: Copy ascii-ctype functions from nbdkit

Dear All I'm making an instrumentation pass. The pass is supposed to modify the given IR in a specefic way. One of the required modifications is to insert a call to a function at a specific location. This is the signature of the called function: void myclass::foo(Function *f, BasicBlock* b) This function's prototype is in an foofile.h file in include/llvm And the function

Hi Gael, I tried converting to your approach but I had some issues making sure that all symbols accessed by the jit modules have entries in the dynamic symbol table. To be specific, my current approach is to use MCJIT (using an objectcache) to JIT the runtime module and then let MCJIT handle linking any references from the jit'd modules; I just experimented with what I think you're doing,

Hi all, I have a question regarding a transformation that is carried out in InstCombine, which has been introduced by r48715. It unfolds expressions of the form `zext(or(icmp, (icmp)))` to `or(zext(icmp), zext(icmp)))` to expose pairs of `zext(icmp)`. In a subsequent iteration these `zext(icmp)` pairs could then (possibly) be optimized by another optimization (which has already been there before

Could we expose predicates defined in the target InstrInfo.td file to the MachineVerifier? We use BuildMI() to create many instructions after ISEL, but the predicates are not being checked at this point. Thus, I could forget to check the target and build an instruction that is illegal for a specific configuration. In such a case it would be nice if the MachineVerifier could detect this for me.

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Dan Gohman wrote: > LLVM knows what all the types of the intrinsic functions are; I thought, > why are users (including llvm-gcc...) required to duplicate all this > information in order to use them? I mean in order to call > getOrInsertFunction to get declarations for them. That is an excellent question! :) In the bad old days, we used to allow intrinsics

Hi, I'm trying to replace function call with call to wrapper(function_name, num_args, ...), where varargs hold args of original call. Function* launch = Function::Create( TypeBuilder<int(const char*, int, ...), false>::get(context), GlobalValue::ExternalLinkage, "kernelgen_launch_", m2); { CallInst* call = dyn_cast<CallInst>(cast<Value>(I)); if

On Tuesday 04 August 2009 18:24, Chris Lattner wrote: > The big issue is things like this: > > DOUT << foo.getName() << "\n"; > > When -debug is disable and even when assertions are turned off, > foo.getName() is still called. When you use: Yep, that's a problem. > DEBUG(errs() << foo.getName() << "\n"); > > When

Are these libs compatible ? At the very least I''d like to be able to use Prototype &amp; Dojo ? Thoughts welcome.. Matt _______________________________________________ Rails-spinoffs mailing list Rails-spinoffs-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-spinoffs