similar to: [LLVMdev] How to fix the operand references of cloned instruction

How can I get the name of the virtual Registers present on an instruction. eg. %add18 = add nsw i32 %mul17, %37 in this case I want to extract the name of the virutal registers as "add18", "mul17","37". This can easily be done in the case of store Instruction eg. store i32 %add20, i32* %t, align 4 in this case functions like

Hello all, My app is using LLVM JIT as a runtime engine for image analysis (similar to opencl). I'm placing values into a struct to pass byref to a series of functions. After running the createStandardModulePasses(...) set of optimizations, the function calls are all inlined but the struct store/load pairs haven't been optimized away. I've attached the code below. What I'd like to

Hello all, My app is using LLVM JIT as a runtime engine for image analysis (similar to opencl). I'm placing values into a struct to pass byref to a series of functions. After running the createStandardModulePasses(...) set of optimizations, the function calls are all inlined but the struct store/load pairs haven't been optimized away. I've attached the code below. What I'd like to

Thank you for your help. It's working now. I wasn't aware of the usefulness of the User class. The ValueMapper.cpp's "RemapInstruction()" also helped me a lot to remap phi nodes and metadatas. Thank you very much. 2012/6/21 Michael Ilseman <michael at lunarg.com> > Please reply-all so that the thread is kept on llvmdev. > > The LLVM Programmer's Manual

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Abhinash Jain <omnia at mailinator.com>wrote: > > But before becoming part of the expressions, the registers will actually > fetch some value from memory, through Load operations. > This is not true; the virtual registers need not be loaded from memory. You may find <

> in LLVM IR, the operands of most expression are registers, so don't have a memory address. Yes I agree with your this statement, But before becoming part of the expressions, the registers will actually fetch some value from memory, through Load operations. as shown in example "r3=r1+r2" will be the expression, where registers such as r1 and r2 contains (fetch) the values from

> On 2014 Dec 10, at 08:40, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:22:16PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >> The `Metadata`/`Value` split (PR21532) landed in r223802 -- at least, the >> C++ side of it. This was a rocky day, but I suppose that's what I get >> for failing to stage the change in smaller pieces. >>

Hi John, On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 8:43 AM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu> wrote: > Does the debug facilities in LLVM TOT, at present, maintain information > better than LLVM 2.6 (i.e., if a front-end puts the debug information in, > will the optimizations not take it out)?  Does the information that the > llvm-gcc front-end adds comparable to what llvm-gcc in LLVM 2.6 does?

Hi, I'm gonna try to give some feedback, but I have only been working with LLVM for a few days, so don't take what I'm saying without verifying :-) > BasicBlock *ProgSlicer::CloneBasicBlock(const BasicBlock *BB, > DenseMap<const Value*, Value*> &ValueMap, > const char *NameSuffix, Function *F) { > > BasicBlock

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 05:27:45PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: > +zalman at google.com > Hi Duncan, This patch plus another small change fixes the assertion failure for me. With the patch alone, the void* overload of addGarbageObject() was being used by MDNode::getTemporary(), so I had to cast the object as an MDNode*: diff --git a/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp b/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp

> On 2014 Dec 10, at 14:08, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:21:08AM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >> >>> On 2014 Dec 10, at 08:40, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:22:16PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >>>> The `Metadata`/`Value`

I committed: r224058 = 966942da9e68b59c31ce770e7f94c55a63482c6b r224060 = da75f7277e3a129aed8ef8aa4e0d84de40b76fd4 r224061 = f88e4c8e9171045454b2c8e05054c2af8da3fe4f Let me know if somehow you're still hitting the problem. r224061 removes leak detection entirely from `MachineInstr`. There aren't any leaks to be had there, since they're allocated in a custom allocator. They're

Hi all, I am trying to write a pass where i am creating a clone of a function (the only difference being, the new function returns void , instead of any value). I am creating a new Function Type with a void return type (rest being the same as original function), and using this i am creating a new function body. Then, i clone the body of the old function into new function, but when ever i

@Jim Grosbach, Is there anyway to resolve it??? -- View this message in context: http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/LLVM-ERROR-Invalid-instruction-tp59856p59865.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

On Jul 26, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Abhinash Jain <omnia at mailinator.com> wrote: > Is there anyway to resolve it??? 1. Teach the cpp backend how to handle it. 2. Compile with -fno-exceptions to turn off exceptions. -- Stephen Checkoway

How to get memory address of all operands which constitutes an expression ? eg. a=b+c; (want to know the memory address of b and c)...... Since I want this at run time, So at assembly level this expression will become something like as follows:- Load r1, M[b] Load r2, M[c] r3=r1+r2 store M[a],r3 Now what i want to do is that, at every store instruction, I should get the memory address of all

Please reply-all so that the thread is kept on llvmdev. The LLVM Programmer's Manual has examples of how to iterate over many common structures, such as instructions in a basic block[1]. Other than that, you can check the source code or doxygen[2]. Basically, you loop over the instructions as detailed in the programmer's manual[1], and loop over the operands using User's

On Jul 11, 2008, at 9:59 AM, David Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 09 July 2008 13:49, David Greene wrote: > >>> then it seems you're doing >>> >>> for each function >>> generate_ir >>> convert_to_llvm_ir >>> optimize_llvm_ir >> >> Yep. > > Ok, I've mostly got a mechanism to do what I want: > > 1. As

On Wednesday 09 July 2008 13:49, David Greene wrote: > > then it seems you're doing > > > > for each function > > generate_ir > > convert_to_llvm_ir > > optimize_llvm_ir > > Yep. Ok, I've mostly got a mechanism to do what I want: 1. As each function comes in for op/codegen, clone it and save off the clone and its associated ValueMap (I

On Friday 11 July 2008 12:05, Devang Patel wrote: > > Ok, I've mostly got a mechanism to do what I want: > > > > 1. As each function comes in for op/codegen, clone it and save off > > the clone and its associated ValueMap (I call these clones > > "pristine" > > functions. > > > > 2. After all processing is done, clone the resulting