similar to: [LLVMdev] lower-lever IR (A-normal form)

I would like to create some tables for my instructions in the IR. For example a table that has all the store instructions. I want all the arguments to a function or instruction or constant etc to be trivial. So to fix my previous example instead of having : call void @llvm.memcpy.i32(i8* %19, i8* getelementptr inbounds ([2 x [2 x [3 x i8]]]* @main.s, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0), i32 12, i32

Hi, i would like to ask you, if i can get a lower-level representation than the llvm IR.For example, having the following instruction in the llvm IR, call void @llvm.memcpy.i32(i8* %19, i8* getelementptr inbounds ([2 x [2 x [3 x i8]]]* @main.s, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0), i32 12, i32 1) i would like to get something like this (in A-normal form (without nested instructions):%temp = i8*

Hello, i am new to LLVM and i want to create my own project with a cpp file which calls llvm functions and then run it. I download clang source, llvm source and compiler-rt source. I tried to configure and build llvm using this http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#getting-started-with-llvm but it failed because .h files included on top of the Hello.cpp couldn't found. Can you tell me

what if another pointer points to the same instruction? Is this possible to happen? Eirini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130829/ad6ba4bb/attachment.html>

Hi, i want to get the address in memory of an instruction pointer and use it as a key in my tables. i iterate over the instructions in LLVM IR like this: for (Module::iterator fi = Mod->begin(), fi_end = Mod->end(); fi != fi_end; ++fi) { for (inst_iterator I = inst_begin(fi), E = inst_end(fi); I != E; ++I) { Instruction *ii = dyn_cast<Instruction>(&*I);

I recently posted a message about an interesting dilemma which I could not figure out. After doing a whole lot more digging I think I have figured out part of what is going on. The parking app is implemented as an app, ie can be called from extensions.conf) but if you look really closely, it is also implemented in each channels driver (handler, whatever you want to call it) and those

Hi Duncan, Why to break? I wish to analyse all the operands of getelemetptr instructions. For which I iterate over the code and get the instruction of interest by getopcode == getelementptr. But the getelementptrs in this form as in my last mail are getting away from my pass. So i wish to break it. I have a work around if breaking is not possible, but I think it may be a common requirement by

Dear Manish, First, in answer to your original question: yes, there is a pass that will convert constant expression GEPs used within LLVM instructions into GEP instructions. SAFECode has a pass called BreakConstantGEPs in safecode/trunk/lib/ArrayBoundChecks/BreakConstantGEPs.cpp (http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/safecode/trunk/lib/ArrayBoundChecks/BreakConstantGEPs.cpp?view=log). It

On 24.09.2013, at 17:38, Eirini Psallida <eirini.psallida at gmail.com <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev>> wrote: >* Hi, *>* i want to get the address in memory of an instruction pointer and use it as a key in my tables.*>* i iterate over the instructions in LLVM IR like this:*>* for (Module::iterator fi = Mod->begin(), fi_end = Mod->end(); fi !=

Hello, Is there a way to generate LLVM IR without constant expressions by promoting constant expressions to registers? e.g.: %tmp1 = tail call i8* @foo(i8* bitcast (i32* @x to i8*), i8* %tmp, i64 4) #1 would be converted to: %tmp1 = bitcast i32* @x to i8* %tmp2 = tail call i8* @foo(i8* %tmp1, i8* %tmp, i64 4) #1 I find quite inconvenient and redundant to maintain constant expressions when

Hi All, I am creating an instrumentation pass using LLVM libraries. I am using clang++ (version 2.9) to compile cpp code into LLVM bit code. When I generate the llvm bit code using clang++ using -O3, I get many instances of instructions that look like the following. br i1 icmp ne (i8* bitcast (i32 (i32)* @pthread_cancel to i8*), i8* null), label %bb23, label %bb25 Here three LLVM instructions

Hi, I am wondering if anyone could run ArrayBoundChecks located in SafeCode-llvm37 (https://github.com/jtcriswell/safecode-llvm37) on llvm-3.8? Thanks. Syed -- Rafi

> > For the record, I just workarounded it in pocl by borrowing the > BreakConstantGEPs code from SAFECode. But for SPIR specs, IMHO, this should > be reconsidered. Yes, I agree. On 24 September 2012 15:08, Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi>wrote: > Well, > > To be honest I'm not very comfortable with the whole constant GEP > idea. It's a

> > > what if another pointer points to the same instruction? > You can have many pointers to the same instruction. However, the address in memory where that instruction lives is unique. Instruction pointers (or Value pointers) are thus commonly used as keys in hash tables or similar. Instructions or Values are almost never copied, so that you won't find the same instruction at

Hello, i parse the llvm IR (llvm-3.3 version) and when i meet a constant, i want to get it's value. eg i32 5, i want to get the 5. I am interested in ConstantInt-ConstantFP-ConstantArray-ConstantStruct subclasses. Things are a bit easier with ConstantInt and ConstantFP constants but how could i get the value of a ConstantArray? The

So I''m trying to make <form action=''/path'' method=''get'' class=''ajax_box''> using: <% form_tag :action => "search_for", {:method => :get, :class => ''ajax_box''} do %> but I get: <form action=''/path?method=get&class=''ajax_box''

Micah, Boaz, Do you guys have any ideas about how to fix this issue? Cheers, James On 24 September 2012 16:04, James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> wrote: > For the record, I just workarounded it in pocl by borrowing the >> BreakConstantGEPs code from SAFECode. But for SPIR specs, IMHO, this >> should >> be reconsidered. > > > Yes, I agree. > >

Well, To be honest I'm not very comfortable with the whole constant GEP idea. It's a new thing to me and I do not fully understand its point in LLVM IR, so I probably wasn't very clear ;) Anyways, me bringing it up was meant as an example of what can happen if one (mis)uses the C function static variable semantics for something that really is a thread local variable (in usual thread

Hi, Sorry, With a prod from Silviu (cc'd) I now understand - I was interpreting your use of "constant GEP" as "GEP with constant operand" as opposed to "ConstantGEP node" which of course can only take a Constant* operand, not a Value* operand. I now fully see the problem and realise that my solution is also prone to that problem :) Cheers, James On 24

John, I have looked at the real code (instead of the obsolete one) and it appears to be easy to find if an operand is a getelementptr instruction. if (ConstantExpr * CE = dyn_cast<ConstantExpr>(I.getOperand(0))) { Out<< "*** operand 0 is a constant Expr******"; if (CE->getOpcode() == Instruction::GetElementPtr) { Out<< "*** operand 0 is