similar to: [LLVMdev] get the identifies of the unnamed temporaries from the instruction of LLVM IR

Hi, On 09/04/13 10:16, Dong Chen wrote: > hello guys: > I am in trouble with get the identifies of the unnamed temporaries from the > instruction of LLVM IR. this is a FAQ. Most names in the IR are just there to make it easier to read and can safely be removed. You can't rely on instructions having names, and as you saw often they do not have a name. Even if they start off with a

hi, Duncan Sands: thanks for your reply old friend. the reason why I want to get the unnamed value is that I am doing some analysis based on the IR code. And IR is in the form of SSA(static single assignment). so i need to get the operands of each instructions including a lot of instructions like this (%4 = mul nsw i32 %1, %width). the unnamed values are the connection of instructions, if i

hi, Duncan, thank you for your reply; instruction "i->getOperand(0)->dump()" may print the %4 in the screen, but how can i store it in a variable like char * oprand="%4" ? -- View this message in context: http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/get-the-identifies-of-the-unnamed-temporaries-from-the-instruction-of-LLVM-IR-tp56572p56588.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Dong Chen <jameschennerd at gmail.com> wrote: > hi, Duncan, > thank you for your reply; > instruction "i->getOperand(0)->dump()" may print the %4 in the screen, but > how can i store it in a variable like char * oprand="%4" ? > >

hi, Duncan: thanks for your patience. i have tried it. using instuction: errs()<<i->getOperand(0); but it prints the address: someting like 0x1139700; i checked the defination of getOperand() is Value* getOperand( unsigned int i); so is there someting i missed? -- View this message in context:

hi Sean Silva: i really appriciate for your reply. but you konw that "dump()" instruction can print "%4" in the screen and each time print the same name "%4" not "%5" or "%6" for the same unnamed value. so there must be a way to determinate it. if "dump()" instruction can print it on the screen, can i find some way to store it in a char *

Hi, On 09/04/13 11:56, Dong Chen wrote: > hi, Duncan: > thanks for your patience. > i have tried it. > using instuction: errs()<<i->getOperand(0); errs()<<*i->getOperand(0); You can also use: i->getOperand(0)->dump(); Ciao, Duncan. > but it prints the address: someting like 0x1139700; > i checked the defination of getOperand() is Value* getOperand(

Hi, On 09/04/13 11:19, Dong Chen wrote: > hi, Duncan Sands: > thanks for your reply old friend. > the reason why I want to get the unnamed value is that I am doing some > analysis based on the IR code. And IR is in the form of SSA(static single > assignment). so i need to get the operands of each instructions including a > lot of instructions like this (%4 = mul nsw i32 %1,

Is there a way through the Value class to get the identifier for an unnamed temporary? Or alternatively, could someone point me to the code where temporaries are assigned sequential numbers as identifiers so I can better understand this issue? Thanks, Scott

Hi, I was trying to use CloneBasicBlock() (in Cloning.h) to clone basic blocks in one of my transform passes. For example, when I have a basic block like: bb1: ; preds = %bb load i32* %i, align 4 ; <i32>:11 [#uses=2] load i32* %n_addr, align 4 ; <i32>:12 [#uses=2] icmp slt i32 %11, %12 ; <i1>:13 [#uses=2] cloning it gives something like: bb1_clone: ; preds = %entry

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Scott Ricketts<sricketts at maxentric.com> wrote: > Is there a way through the Value class to get the identifier for an > unnamed temporary? Or alternatively, could someone point me to the > code where temporaries are assigned sequential numbers as identifiers > so I can better understand this issue? The relevant code is

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Judison <judison at gmail.com> wrote: > I hope this is the right place to ask it, sorry if I'm wrong... It's the right place, though the IRC channel would have been good too. > My compiler is generating this code: > > (line numbers included) (Please ignore the extra br label %b0 and the whole > b0) Sorry, but the extra branches

> I did mean the LangRef, but probably not there, and not to that degree. For documentation I think being explicit is much better than being implicit. > It's a fairly minor point, perhaps warranting a sentence where unnamed > values are generally discussed and the basic-block case is mentioned > (under the "Identifiers" section). I took a look at the

Hi, I hope this is the right place to ask it, sorry if I'm wrong... My compiler is generating this code: (line numbers included) (Please ignore the extra br label %b0 and the whole b0) ... 54 define i32 @std_lang__rest() { 55 entry: 56 %ret = alloca i32 ; <i32*> int* 57 %0 = icmp eq i32 4, 5 ; <i1> boolean 58

Hi, Recently I came across some IR produced by a frontend that had unnamed function arguments. For example something like this. ``` define i32 @foo(i32, i32, i32) #0 { %x = add i32 %1, %2 ret i32 %x } ``` I had never seen this before, so I took a look at the LLVM language reference manual and the section on functions [1] doesn't say anything about what "argument list" can be

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Chris Lattner<clattner at apple.com> wrote: > VMCore will auto-unique value names for you. Most passes just create > all instructions with a name like "tmp" and let VMCore unique them. > Is this enough for you? On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Eli Friedman<eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > The relevant code is

I have written a module pass. When I use the debug pass structure option, the name of my module pass is printed but then I get "Unnamed pass" when the FunctionPassManagerImpl *FPP calls dumpPassStructure (in PassManager.cpp). Is this the expected behavior, or should I be concerned that there is an error in my approach? Thanks, Scott

On 13 August 2014 15:48, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: >> The above LLVM IR was confusing to me because I usually see that >> unnamed registers start counting from 1 (i.e. %1 = add ...). > > There's a (usually hidden) %0 representing the entry basic block > there. The general rule is "start from 0 and keep counting; skip named >

Hi. I found that, in all the LLVM IR I get from the source C file. the unnamed values all created by the "load" instruction. eg: ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable define i32 @add(i32 %x, i32 %y) #0 { entry: %x.addr = alloca i32, align 4 %y.addr = alloca i32, align 4 %c = alloca i32, align 4 store i32 %x, i32* %x.addr, align 4 store i32 %y, i32* %y.addr, align 4 * %0 =

Update: the "unnamed pass" is PostDominatorTree. My module pass requires PDT (specified in its getAnalysisUsage). When it visits a function, it calls getAnalysis<PostDominatorTree>(), which triggers the failed assertion "getAnalysis*() called on an analysis that was not 'required' by pass!" This issue has been addressed on this mailing list, but it seems the