similar to: [LLVMdev] get the address in memory where an instruction lives

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 !=

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > and since result of *it is considered to be rvalue it can't be accepted > > by this operator. The complete discussion is in > > > > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1385.htm > > > > I'd suggest to apply the following patch which makes operator* return >

I am looping through all instructions in a Function and depending on what I found I may or may not insert code. Despite the fact that I'm only actually inserting *before* instruction I have a infinite loop when I do something like below. For awhile it was simple enough to just increment i enough times but now I need something better. for(inst_iterator i = inst_begin(F); i != inst_end(F); ++i)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Yea, I've noticed that. However, it looks like inst_iterator is iterator over > pointers. Oh, wait a minite, that's the current code: > > inline IIty operator*() const { return BI; } > inline IIty operator->() const { return operator*(); } > > So operator* works as if value_type is Instruction*, but operator->

On Aug 29, 2011, at 12:38 PM, ret val wrote: > I am looping through all instructions in a Function and depending on > what I found I may or may not insert code. Despite the fact that I'm > only actually inserting *before* instruction I have a infinite loop > when I do something like below. For awhile it was simple enough to > just increment i enough times but now I need

Hi. Thanks. I changed the code but the problem exists. This is my new code which is again very simple: ... bool runOnFunction(Function &F) override { vector<Instruction *> dels; dels.clear(); for (inst_iterator It = inst_begin(&F), Ie = inst_end(&F); It != Ie;) { Instruction *I = &*(It++); if (auto* op = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(I)) { IRBuilder<NoFolder>

hi how can i write IRinstruction on a file.txt? when i use  {for(inst_iterator I = inst_begin(F), E = inst_end(F); I != E; ++I,count++)  IRcodefile << std::basic_ostream(*I) <<"\n" } i get  error. is there any way that i can write it on file? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

LLVM is built in Release mode. The version is 6.0.0. I think that a similar code worked on verison 3.9.0. It is probably a null pointer dereference occurring in eraseFromParent(). I checked and reconfirmed that the instruction had no uses. Perhaps I should rebuild LLVM. Thanks. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:03 PM, mayuyu.io <admin at mayuyu.io> wrote: > Hmmmm that’s strange. Do you get an

Hello, I think there's a rather subtle problem with the inst_iterator. It declares its iterator category as std::bidirectional_iterator_tag but C++ standard requirements for forward iterator (which are included in requirements for bidirection iterator), say that the type of expression *r; should be T&, where 'r' is the iterator and T is its value type. The inst_iterator,

Thanks Bjorn! But The problem is still there. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:04 AM, Björn Pettersson A < bjorn.a.pettersson at ericsson.com> wrote: > It looks quite dangerous to erase the instruction I inside the loop when > iterating over all instructions in the function. > I guess it depends on how the range based iterator is implemented if that > works or not. > > I think

There’s a few passes in LLVM that make heavy use of a big DenseMap, one that potentially gets filled with up to 1 entry for each instruction in the function. EarlyCSE is the best example, but Reassociate and MachineCSE have this to some degree as well (there might be others?). To put it simply: at least in my profile, EarlyCSE spends ~1/5 of its time growing DenseMaps. This is kind of… bad.

I did a simple test just now, but I alse failed. I delete several ordered instructions from end to begin, but after deleting the first instruction(the last instruction of F), the program crashed. My test code is below (F is a function only containing several sequential instructions): for (inst_iterator inst == --inst_end(F); inst != inst_begin(F); --inst) { Instruction * i = &*inst;

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, Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Gurunath Kadam via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Date: 11/27/2016 7:49 PM (GMT-06:00) To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: [llvm-dev] LLVM Pass for Instructions in Function (error Hi, Please find the embedded code. Also you may follow

On 2009-09-06 17:30, Ioannis Nousias wrote: > I've tried to write a DFGPrinter based on the CFGPrinter, as you > suggested, but encountered problems. > > The GraphWriter expects > GraphTraits<GraphType>::nodes_begin()/nodes_end(). The way this is > implemented in CFG.h, a function is a graph of basic blocks. A > GraphTraits<Function*> inherits from

On 2009-09-06 19:57, Ioannis Nousias wrote: > Edwin, > > thank you for your effort, but I'm not sure I understand. > Are you describing a graph traversal problem? Is the data model stored > in a predecessor/successor fashion, which requires you to 'walk' the > graph in order to visit all nodes? (and what happens when you have > disjointed DFGs?). Sorry for the

Hi, I want to extract all instruction of the form "alloca %struct.S", where $struct.S is defined as a struct %struct.S = type { i32, i32 } I'm using the following loop: for(inst_iterator i = inst_begin(F), e = inst_end(F); i!= e; i++) { AllocaInst* ai; if( (ai = dyn_cast<AllocaInst>(&*i))){ if(ai->getOperand(0)->getType()->getTypeID() ==

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > and since result of *it is considered to be rvalue it can't be accepted by > this operator. The complete discussion is in > > http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/n1385.htm > > I'd suggest to apply the following patch which makes operator* return > reference to pointer. It makes my code compile and the rest

Hi everyone, I am trying to write a pass, that finds some instructions and replaces them with my intrinsics, but I am having problem understanding, how this should be done. Let's say I have this instruction: %tmp14 = load i32* getelementptr ([32 x i32]* @gpregs, i32 0, i64 28) and i need to read the load's operands and replace it by let's say: %tmp14 = call i32

Just want to test out the LLVM's AliasAnalysis::getModRefInfo API. The input C code is very simple: void foo(int *a, int *b) { for(int i=0; i<10; i++) b[i] = a[i]*a[i]; } int main() { int a[10]; int b[10]; for(int i=0; i<10; i++) a[i] = i; foo(a,b); return 0; } Obviously, for "foo", it only reads from array "a" and only writes to array