similar to: [LLVMdev] IR Line Number

> Neither worked. =( Hmm. Something seems to have gone horribly wrong then. I've just reproduced Peter's suggestion on the autoconf build and it worked fine. Perhaps try a clean build out of tree: CMake: mkdir my_special_build_dir cd my_special_build_dir cmake $PATH_TO_LLVM_SOURCE make llc Autotools: mkdir my_special_build_dir cd my_special_build_dir $PATH_TO_LLVM_SOURCE/configure

You can also do make ONLY_TOOLS="llc" Pete On May 3, 2012, at 11:52 PM, Tim Northover wrote: > Hi Beckert, > >> is it possible to compile just an subproject? For example, just llc or lli? > > With CMake you can just type "make llc" from your build directory. I > don't know about the autotools build. > > Tim. >

Hi, thanks for your answers. I did: cd workspace svn co http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk llvm cd llvm/ mkdir build cd build/ ../configure --enable-jit make                                                      # OK, everything went fine. cd ../lib/Transforms/InstCombine/            # Just to test vim InstCombineCalls.cpp                       # added `if (0 == 1) return 0;` at

Dear there, I'm trying to call BuildMI in my backend to add a machineinstr. BuildMI(MBB, I, I->getDebugLoc(), TII->get(Vanilla::MOV), Vanilla::R1).addReg(MI->getOperand(1).getReg()); But it gives me an error like this: 0 clang 0x000000010e61a56e llvm::sys::PrintStackTrace(llvm::raw_ostream&) + 46 1 clang 0x000000010e61c209

Hello, is it possible to compile just an subproject? For example, just llc or lli? Cheers. Beckert. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120503/c20aa7b1/attachment.html>

Hi Eric and thanks for your answer, What I mean is that I want to find the number of line on the IR code of a specific instruction. I found out that I can use: DebugLoc Loc = CurrentInstruction->getDebugLoc(); unsigned Line = Loc.getLine(); But this works only if DEBUGFLAG is True. I'd like to be able to get the Line number without being on a 'Debug' mode. Is

Neither worked. =( ________________________________ From: Peter Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com> To: Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> Cc: Beckert Frey <beckert.frey at yahoo.com>; "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Friday, May 4, 2012 2:22 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] how compile subproject You can also do make

Hi Dan, If you set the node's action to "Custom", you should be able to interfere in the type legalisation phase (before it gets promoted to a 64-bit MUL) by overriding the "ReplaceNodeResults" function. You could either expand it to a different libcall directly there, or replace it with a target-specific node (say XXXISD::MUL32) which claims to take i64 types but you

Hi I am using LLVM to help me do some code analysis. I wrote a LLVM Function Pass to help me to generate some information. I use the code below to get the source line information for every instruction. for (BasicBlock &BB : F){ for(Instruction &I: BB){ DILocation* Loc = I.getDebugLoc().get(); unsigned Line = Loc->getLine() } } I think the function's first

Hi list, Is it possible to retrieve the source/IR line number without being on a debug mode? Thank you in advance, -- irini

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 5:25 AM Muhui Jiang via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi > > I am using LLVM to help me do some code analysis. I wrote a LLVM Function > Pass to help me to generate some information. I use the code below to get > the source line information for every instruction. > > for (BasicBlock &BB : F){ > for(Instruction &I:

Hi David Thank you very much for your suggestions. ScopeLine works well. It could represent the start of a function. Do you know whether I can get the start column of this function? Many Thanks Regards Muhui 2018-05-30 3:25 GMT+08:00 David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>: > > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 5:25 AM Muhui Jiang via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

Hello, I am compiling a program with debugging information, and am attempting to extract !dbg numbers from function calls in LLVM IR. However, I've found a few inconsistencies. For example, this call exists in my module: %1 = tail call i1 @llvm.type.test(i8* bitcast (i32 (i32)* @_Z5otheri to i8*), metadata !"_ZTSFiiE") #5, *!dbg !69*, !nosanitize !2 I would like to extract the 69

Folks, I am newbie to llvm! I am writing a simple pass that inherits from ModulePass. I override the runOnModule method. In the method, i am attempting to print all the function in the module and the source-file they appear in. I could print the name of the function using the Module::iterator. I am, however, not able to figure-out the way to identify the source-file for a given

Hi, I'm trying to add a new intrinsic to the ARM backend. The intrinsic should a custom comparison. To do so, I started with first defining the intrinsic in llvm/include/llvm/IR/intrinsicsARM.td: def int_foo_cmp : Intrinsic<[llvm_i32_ty], [llvm_i32_ty, llvm_i32_ty], []>; The second step I did is adding a new pseudo instruction matching that intrinsic in lib/Target/ARM/ARMInstInfo.td:

Thanks for the information, allow maybe I can re-phrase the question or issue. Assume 64-bit register types, but integer is 32-bit. Already have table generation of the 64-bit operation descriptions. How about this modified approach? Before type-legalization, I'd really like to move all MUL I64 to a subroutine call of my own choice. This would be a form of customization, but I want this

I am trying to locate instructions in an LLVM Pass by line and column number (reported by an third-party tool) to instrument them. To achieve this, I am compiling my source files with `clang -g -O0 -emit-llvm` and looking for the information in the metadata using this code: const DebugLoc &location = instruction->getDebugLoc(); // location.getLine() // location.getCol()

> *nod*. That's most of what we needed for ARM as well. Should probably > conditionalize it on os darwin for now until it's tested more with a > command line? I'd almost prefer to leave it in for the bugs to be discovered (perhaps after some simple tests of our own). ARM went wirthout FastISel support on Linux for years simply because it was declared Darwin-only. Tim.

Hello, I'm studying how the SCEV analyzis works and how to use it and I could not create an example where the SCEV analyzis identifies an expression as "SCEVAddRecExpr". Aren't the expressions below the kind of pattern that should be represented as a "AddRecExpr" ? SCEV: (1 + (2 * %3) or SCEV: (%1 + (2 * %3) or SCEV: (%1 + (%2 * %3) In my experiments they are

Beckert Frey <beckert.frey at yahoo.com> writes: [snip] > Is InstCombine required for lli? Yes: $ llvm-config --libs mcjit jit interpreter nativecodegen bitreader asmparser selectiondag -lLLVMAsmParser -lLLVMBitReader -lLLVMX86CodeGen -lLLVMX86Desc -lLLVMX86Info -lLLVMX86AsmPrinter -lLLVMX86Utils -lLLVMSelectionDAG -lLLVMAsmPrinter -lLLVMMCParser -lLLVMInterpreter -lLLVMJIT