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

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);

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>

> > > 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

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->

Chris Lattner wrote: > > inline IIty operator*() const { return BI; } > > inline IIty operator->() const { return operator*(); } > > > > So operator* works as if value_type is Instruction*, but operator-> works > > as if value_type is Instruction. Hmm ;-) > > Yeah, fishy huh? :) Yea, a bit. I've decided that before changing that I'd better

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

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

Something must be wrong, more probable on my side. So the C source code is unchanged, I just did another experiment to first extract all the GEPs in the code, and call AliasAnalysis::alias on each pair of GEPs. Here is the code: AliasAnalysis &AA = getAnalysis<AliasAnalysis>(); TargetData &TD = getAnalysis<TargetData>(); for (Module::iterator it = M.begin();

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:

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,

On Nov 23, 2007 5:29 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi, > > > I want to know how to dump the a instruction in gdb. I can dump a > Module > > use M.dump(), also is there any such print function which can be used in > gdb > > for a single instruction and its operand? > > you can dump most things in LLVM the same way as for a module: if I

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 >

Hello all, I am a LLVM newer who want to obtain the use-def chain for all instruction of a sample code, for this purpose i use the following code. ///////////////sample code:///////////////////////// #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <time.h> #define ARRAY_SIZE 5 int main() { int x, y, holder; int k,z,f,i; z=0; f=0; k=0; for(x = 0; x < ARRAY_SIZE;

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

lucefe wrote: > 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 !=

Hi, I copied the code from LLVM2.6 below. line 81 removes 'I' from the worklist. But 'I' is already removed from the list at line 67 when it is popped from the list. Could the loop (line 73-75) insert this I into the worklist again? In the case where 'I' can be constant-folding, Line 80 says 'I' is a dead instruction. Can 'I' appears in its def-use chain?

I just realised I forgot to reply to this. Thanks for advise, it's good to know. Thanks, Dan Liew. On 30 August 2013 16:25, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Daniel Liew <daniel.liew at imperial.ac.uk> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to write a small piece of code that inlines all calls to a >> particular

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;