similar to: [LLVMdev] SSA for memory objects

Hello. Thank you very much for the research paper. I will try to make use of the algorithms it presents. I just want to add that I found a 3rd party project doing dataflow analysis for LLVM IR at https://github.com/rohitjha/cse231-proj2. As written at http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~r1jha/#five , the project's description is: "Dataflow Analysis Framework for LLVM This is an

Actually I have collected some pointer information in the form [ p -> a,c ]. Now suppose at some node I have information as [p->a,c]. Now i want to find a merge node above this node where this information is actually geting merged. So if I get a merge node above this, I can check in its predecessors if their out has only [p->a] or [p->c] and if not so then I will look for the next

ambika at cse.iitb.ac.in wrote: > Actually I have collected some pointer information in the form [ p -> a,c > ]. Now suppose at some node I have information as [p->a,c]. Now i want to > find a merge node above this node where this information is actually > geting merged. > So if I get a merge node above this, I can check in its predecessors if > their out has only [p->a]

Actually I am interested only if the information merges at join node, otherwise not... So just getting a node with more than one predecessor might help. But can I figure out if there is a function call in between, in any of these nodes? Thanks a lot for helping out... John Criswell wrote: > ambika at cse.iitb.ac.in wrote: >> Actually I have collected some pointer information in the

I need to figure out all LLVM Instructions that may write to memory. In http://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/OCamlLangImpl7.html, it mentions that "In LLVM, all memory accesses are explicit with load/store instructions, and it is carefully designed not to have (or need) an "address-of" operator." I take this as "StoreInst is the only one that writes to memory". However,

Hello, I'm wondering how I can create an atomic load and add instruction for floating point values. If I use IRBuilder::CreateAtomicRMW() I get the error message: "atomicrmw operand must have integer type". I am using LLVM 3.4 and the only system I need to support is x86.

I'm trying to create a clone of a function using Function::Create() and CloneFunctionInto. However, I'm running into an issue. I believe that the instructions in the function clone still have Use edges to values in the original function. This is a problem for my purposes. For example, consider an original function F. I create a new function G belonging to the same module and call

On 1/21/11 2:50 PM, Chuck Zhao wrote: > I need to figure out all LLVM Instructions that may write to memory. > > In http://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/OCamlLangImpl7.html, it mentions that > "In LLVM, all memory accesses are explicit with load/store > instructions, and it is carefully designed not to have (or need) an > "address-of" operator." > > I take

Hello, I would like to see if this issue is a result of a misunderstanding on my part before I file a bug. I am using LLVM 3.4, built from the source tarballs. My system's uname is "Darwin tyler-air 12.5.0 Darwin Kernel Version 12.5.0: Sun Sep 29 13:33:47 PDT 2013; root:xnu-2050.48.12~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64". All I'm trying to do is add a runtime check after all call

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:34 AM, Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy at imag.fr> wrote: > Patrick Meredith <pmeredit at uiuc.edu> writes: > >> Memory is what the i32* points too. The i32* itself is in a >> register. You can store to it as many times as you want, but you >> can't change the address, because that would violate SSA. > > Thanks, > > For the

Patrick Meredith <pmeredit at uiuc.edu> writes: > Memory is what the i32* points too. The i32* itself is in a > register. You can store to it as many times as you want, but you > can't change the address, because that would violate SSA. Thanks, For the record, I finally understood by making a few experiments: This is (obviously) valid: define i32 @main() {

John, Thanks for the reply. I agree with your comments that the "Memory" LLVM Spec refers to doesn't include stack. Let me leverage a bit further: If I need to work on high-level IRs (not machine dependent, not in the code-gen stage), is it reasonable to assume that ALL LLVM IRs that have a result field will have potential to write stack? E.g. <result> =

[ sorry for the late reply ] Patrick Meredith <pmeredit at uiuc.edu> wrote: > All register uses are SSA. Memory is not in SSA. The mem2reg pass > which promotes stack variables to registers effectively converts non- > SSA to SSA. There was a reg2mem pass, written by Andrew Lenharth, I'm > not sure if it's still being maintained. What is the difference between

So if I first create the value in an entry BB and then build a CopyToReg but then I have to read it in a BB that loops back to itself, with it's own CopyToReg at the end, then I have two CopyToReg nodes for the same value. In this case, I need to create 3 virt regs, 1 for each CopyToReg and a third for the CopyFromReg in the beginning of the loop BB, right? And then I need to build a PHI

>> You need to figure out how to pass -rdynamic to the linker, like I said before. http://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/OCamlLangImpl7.html mentions it, but I don't know enough about the ocaml build process to say whether that'll work. I believe I'm already doing that, properly by passing -ccopt -rdynamic to ocamlopt: ocamlopt -cc g++ -ccopt -rdynamic -linkall $(LIBFILES) -o alpha

Hi, We are planning to implement an analysis and optimization specifically meant for non-SSA code. We would like to know whether LLVM supports non-SSA IR? The other choice we have is to work with the GIMPLE code of GCC. We need your help in choosing the appropriate framework. thanks Saleena N National Institute of Technology Calicut India -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment

Hi, Is decompilation possible in general to the SSA form for binaries? I assume one has to make certain assumptions about code in general to get tools like these to work. For example if code like with dlsym or jit heap allocated functions can be incorporated at runtime it would seem that in general it is quite difficult to ascertain the boundaries of a basic block and insert the correct phi

Hi, everyone. I'm a senior at Swarthmore College and would love to work with LLVM this summer. I'm interested in systems languages and security, and I'll start a PhD on these topics this fall. I also do a good deal of open source development and auditing with OpenBSD and a variety of other projects. I spent last year's GSoC doing security auditing for Pidgin/libpurple. GSoC seems

So if I create a value with a DAG.getUndef(myVT); call during instruction legalization, how can I access that value as input in another BB/DAG (also during instruction legalization) without worrying about live-ins and/or phi nodes? Can I create a single virtual register and build both a CopyToReg and a CopyFromReg node with it? I assumed that would break SSA. Perhaps I should have said that what

> } while (__c11_atomic_compare_exchange_weak( > addr, &oldval, newval, memory_order_seq_cst, memory_order_relaxed)); Actually, I think this condition is inverted. Should be "while (!_c11...". Sorry about that. Tim.