similar to: [LLVMdev] problem with visitBranchInst()

Moving to LLVM dev to discuss the possibility of extending the cast infrastructure to handle this. On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:51 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > On Nov 18, 2012, at 5:05 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> TypeLoc casting looks bogus. >> >> TypeLoc derived types return true from classof when the dynamic type >>

Hi, this is a bit of a newbie question: I am trying to discover, given a block with a conditional and its successors, which condition (T/F) each successor applies to. There's almost identical code in CFGPrinter.cpp, but where it gets called in GraphWriter.h, the child_iterator type is a pretty hairy thing, so I still don't quite understand how to get one from a BasicBlock in my own

Dear LLVM developers, I have a question regarding the IPSCCP class and the handling of dead blocks: The file lib/Transforms/Scalar/SCCP.cpp of llvm 2.8 from contains some code to deal with a dead block which could not be folded (line 1909ff). This happens when a user of this dead block is a branch or switch with an undef condition. The action taken than is to replace this terminator with an

Hello, I’m trying to insert an instruction if a specific label name/string is encountered and would appreciate some guidance on where I should start. Basically when parsing going through this .ll file: ; Function Attrs: noinline nounwind optnone uwtable define i32 @main(i32, i8**) #0 { %3 = alloca i32, align 4 %4 = alloca i32, align 4 %5 = alloca i8**, align 8 %6 = alloca i32, align

Hello, I'm finding problems with BackEdgeTaken count calculation in even simple fortran loops with gfortran-4.6 + DragonEgg 3.0. Even for simple double loops like this one: program test2 integer i,j,k dimension k(100,100) do j=1,100 do i=1,100 k(i,j) = i enddo enddo write(*,*) k(1,30) end make the ScalarEvolution

Attached 2012/2/8 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > Mmm, sorry, the patch I posted crashes if ExitBr is null (which it may > be ...) , this one should be ok (and passess all the ScalarEvolution > tests in LLVM): > > diff --git a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp > index daf7742..b10fab2 100644 > ---

Well, it wasn't intended as a "real" patch to be included , but more as a "proof of concept" for a solution. Do you think it is a valid solution and I'm correct in my assumption? If so then I'll clean up the patch and attach a testcase for inclusion. Thanks! Marcello 2012/2/9 Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com>: > Your patch should include a testcase,

This is the .ll for that graph (attached). I think I understand what you are saying. This particular testcase returns CNC not because the exit block doesn't have a unique predecessor, but because the unique predecessor (the inner loop block) has a successor that is inside the loop (in this case itself, because it's the inner loop block). That doesn't change, anyway, the assuption that

Mmm, sorry, the patch I posted crashes if ExitBr is null (which it may be ...) , this one should be ok (and passess all the ScalarEvolution tests in LLVM): diff --git a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp index daf7742..b10fab2 100644 --- a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp +++ b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp @@ -4293,9 +4293,15 @@

Your patch should include a testcase, see test/Analysis/ScalarEvolution for examples. "BranchInst* " should be "BranchInst *". You should have spaces after the // in your comments. One of the comment lines isn't indented properly. Nick On 8 February 2012 12:05, Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com> wrote: > Attached > > 2012/2/8 Marcello Maggioni

Hi, I got a problem when I am trying to add a dummy basic block. Let say there are two blocks, A and B. A----->B I am trying to generate new BB called C which is located between A and B, but not break the edge of AB. The graph is like the following A---->B \ / \ / C There is new BB 'C' with edges AC and CB. It is kind of like what breakcriticaledge pass does.

On 8 February 2012 15:50, Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com> wrote: > Well, it wasn't intended as a "real" patch to be included , but more > as a "proof of concept" for a solution. Do you think it is a valid > solution and I'm correct in my assumption? If so then I'll clean up > the patch and attach a testcase for inclusion. > I'm

This is instead a very simple (handmade) test case that triggers the problem (attached) Also a more conforming patch has been attached 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > This is the .ll for that graph (attached). I think I understand what > you are saying. > This particular testcase returns CNC not because the exit block > doesn't have a unique predecessor,

FInally I had the time to complete everything up. Now I included the test case in the patch and the testcase runs with the LLVM tests system. 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > This is instead a very simple (handmade) test case that triggers the > problem (attached) > Also a more conforming patch has been attached > > 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms

Hello all, I have written a pass, which replaces condition branchinst using indirectBr to obfuscate program. The origin IR is as the following: br i1 %1, label %2, label %3 And the transformed IR is as the follwoing: %4 = select i1 %1, i8* blockaddress(@func, %2), i8* blockaddress(@func, %3) indirectbr i8* %4, [label %2, label %3] The pass's core function is as the

While adding support for branch instructions in my backend, I run into a trouble. The code to handle branches looks like: void visitBranchInst(BranchInst& BI) { BB->addSuccessor (MBBMap[BI.getSuccessor(0)]); if (BI.isConditional()) BB->addSuccessor (MBBMap[BI.getSuccessor(1)]); ........... BuildMI(BB,

Hi, I just thought of trying vmkit and checked out the source from the svn repo a few minutes back. The build is failing with the following error. llvm[4]: Compiling CGCleanup.cpp for Release+Asserts build CGCleanup.cpp:507:36: error: no member named 'getCaseSuccessor' in 'llvm::SwitchInst'; did you mean 'getSuccessor'?

Hi All, I am trying to write code for simple instrumentation. What I want to do is to insert a call to an external function for result of each conditional branch instruction. This external function simply print true or false based on the result of condition. The modified code is then written into new file. However when I try to link that file with another bitcode file (containing external

Hi All, I need to remove successors from every basic block to insert new ones I tried this code, but it doesn't work void RemoveSuccessor(TerminatorInst *TI, unsigned SuccNum) { assert(SuccNum < TI->getNumSuccessors() && "Trying to remove a nonexistant successor!"); // If our old successor block contains any PHI nodes, remove the entry in the //

On Apr 14, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Luke Dalessandro wrote: > > On Apr 14, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Brice Lin wrote: > >> I just read the LLVM Programmer's Manual, which mentions (but >> specifically does not include any details of) the InstVisitor >> template. Could someone please provide an example of how to use this >> template to find (as an example) all CallSites for