similar to: [LLVMdev] list of available/valid values near an instruction

Hi Krzysztof yes, they are available. What I want is to have a list of those values I can iterate over.... Alex > I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly, but all values > whose definitions dominate the instruction that you are looking at are > available. Globals and function arguments are always available in a > given module or function. > > -Krzysztof >

John, you are right. I 'browsed' the doxygen's inheritance diagram. Shouldn't I then be able to cast Constant * to Value*? Plugging the retrieved Constant* (from ConstantExpr::getGetElementPtr) into Instruction->setOperand compiles, but gives me an assertion failure at runtime. I have no access to the code at the moment. I will gather more information possibly tomorrow.

Hi all, extracting datafields of globals, the API code ends up in a Constant * Constant* const_ptr_103 = ConstantExpr::getGetElementPtr(gvar_struct_foo, const_ptr_103_indices); it can be used to initialize e.g. a new instruction like: StoreInst* void_119 = new StoreInst(const_float_102, const_ptr_103, false, label_entry_113); But how about replacing the operand of an already existing

Okay, I've think I understand now. By using a "Value" object (like a function call) in another instruction does nothing more than use a reference to that value. It is still my responsibility to ensure that value/reference is actually created prior to its use in the block. On 02/11/12 12:16, Nick Lewycky wrote: > edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: >> I'm having trouble figuring

Thanks, So, how do I check if a block dominates another one? On 25 April 2013 11:59, Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 4/25/2013 11:52 AM, Giacomo Tagliabue wrote: > >> Is there an easy way to know if, at a certain instruction, a certain >> value is usable or not? i.e., I am sure that if i use that value i don't >> to get the error

Is there an easy way to know if, at a certain instruction, a certain value is usable or not? i.e., I am sure that if i use that value i don't to get the error "Instruction does not dominate all uses!" Thanks, GT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130425/477fc259/attachment.html>

Hi all, translating the following c code to llvm c++Api code, I can not understand the result. Perhaps someone could explain it to me. c code --------------------------------- struct stest { int age; float weight; } foo={44,67.2}; int main() { foo.weight=68.2; ... ---------------------------------------- API code // this is clear ConstantFP* const_float_102 =

getInitializer returns the complete initializer of the global. My globals are complex nested structs, from which I want to extract e.g. one double datafield. Example: >From a struct Stuct having double,array(3xint),float fields, I could extract the second int value using the index sequence 0,1,1 with getGetElementPtr. This gives me a constantPointer, but I would need to get a constInt...

Hi Chuck, > std::vector<Instruction *>::iterator p; > Instruction * pi = PREVIOUS_POSITION; > BasicBlock * pb = PREVIOUS_POSITION->getParent(); > > for(p = coll.begin(); p != coll.end(); ++p){ > Instruction * CurI = * p; > Instruction * CloneI = CurI->clone(); clone doesn't know have any magical way of knowing that it should update the instruction's

I collected a sequence of LLVM instructions, want to make a copy of each and insert them into a PREVIOUS location inside the same function (all globals and locals are properly declared before the PREVIOUS location). Here is the list of instructions I want to duplicate and insert: 0 %90 = load i32* @strstart, align 4 1 %91 = add i32 %90, 2 2 %88 = load i32* @ins_h, align 4 3 %92 =

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 1/7/2016 1:55 PM, Phil Tomson via llvm-dev wrote: > >> >> let Uses= [GRP] in { >> def RelAddr : XSTGPseudo< (outs), >> (ins GPRC:$spoff, GPRC:$dst), >>

On 4/25/2013 12:06 PM, Giacomo Tagliabue wrote: > Thanks, > So, how do I check if a block dominates another one? In IR use analysis DominatorTree from "include/llvm/Analysis/Dominators.h". For machine instructions, use MachineDominatorTree from "include/llvm/CodeGen/MachineDominators.h". Both of them implement function "dominates" that takes two blocks

On 4/25/2013 11:52 AM, Giacomo Tagliabue wrote: > Is there an easy way to know if, at a certain instruction, a certain > value is usable or not? i.e., I am sure that if i use that value i don't > to get the error "Instruction does not dominate all uses!" Check if the block containing the definition dominates the block where you want to use the value. If this is the same

Over in pr26718, we ran across a case where input IR had one PHI within a basic block using the value of another PHI within the same basic block (without a backedge). There has been some disagreement as to whether this is valid IR. I believe it is not. The verifier currently accepts the following code without error: define void @f() { entry: br label %next next: %y = phi i32 [ 0,

Hi all, I can get access to the data stored in globals as follows: GlobalVariable* pGvarAct=_set_a_valid_global_; const_ptr_indicesVec=_the_indexes_ llvm::Constant* pConst; pConst=ConstantExpr::getGetElementPtr(pGvarAct, const_ptr_indicesVec); and e.g. use this to repalece an argumrnt of an instruction like: I->setOperand(someArgumentIndex,pConst); However, getGetElementPtr returns a

On 5/16/11 9:35 AM, Chuck Zhao wrote: > I have the following prototype for a function: > void bkp_memory(char *, int); > > Inside my LLVM IR, I have a callsite looks like the following: > tail call void @bkp_memory(i8* bitcast (i32** @P to i8*), i32 4) nounwind > > > When I try to obtain its 1st argument and check whether it is a valid > instruction, using: >

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at codeaurora.org > wrote: > On 1/7/2016 3:25 PM, Phil Tomson wrote: > >> >> That's better, but now I get: >> >> XSTGInstrInfo.td:902:3: error: In RelAddr: XSTGRELADDR node requires >> exactly 2 operands! >> >> Which makes some sense as XSTGRELADDR is defined as: >> def

edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > I'm having trouble figuring out what the error "Instruction does not > dominate all uses!" means. I'm trying to construct a call to a function > with two parameters. The printed IR, with error, looks like this: > > define i32 @add(i32, i32) { > EntryBlock: > %2 = add i32 %0, %1 > ret i32 %2 > } > > define i32

On 11/6/2015 11:35 AM, Sky Flyer via llvm-dev wrote: > Guys, I stuck at this point. Could you please give me a hint how to > solve this problem without touching the LLVM backbone?! > Why LLVM doesn't let me define an instruction consisting of an operator > with no operand? Could you try it without the pattern? I.e. just this: class TestInst<string opc, string asmstr,

I have the following prototype for a function: void bkp_memory(char *, int); Inside my LLVM IR, I have a callsite looks like the following: tail call void @bkp_memory(i8* bitcast (i32** @P to i8*), i32 4) nounwind When I try to obtain its 1st argument and check whether it is a valid instruction, using: Instruction *Inst = dyn_cast<Instruction *>(I->getOperand(0)); it gives me a