similar to: [LLVMdev] BasicBlock.h in the binary and in the source differ

The source is cloned from https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm Thanks. Zhoulai On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > > > On 4/9/15 9:58 AM, Zhoulai wrote: > >> Hi, I am using LLVM to develop a tool, using Mac OS 10.9. I have >> download llvm source and binary from >> >>

David, As you suggested, I try to compile the following test code: *include "llvm/IR/Instruction.h"#include "stdint.h"extern void callback(intptr_t);void foo(){ llvm::Instruction* i; intptr_t zzzz=static_cast<intptr_t>(i); callback(zzzz);}* but got this compilation error: * 'intptr_t' (aka 'long') is not allowed intptr_t

Hi, I wonder whether we can easily retrieve an LLVM instruction ID that uniquely identifies the instruction. In my case, I need to avoid using llvm::Instruction* directly. Given an 'inst' of type llvm::instruction*, is there some readily usable method as simple as "int id = inst->id( )"? Thanks. Zhoulai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

Hi, Are there some built-in LLVM transformation pass, or written library code that transforms LLVM::SwitchInst into if-condition statements (LLVM:: BranchInst)? The purpose of the transformation is that we have a legacy program analyzer that includes an LLVM pass manipulating if-condition statements. Statements of LLVM::SwithchInst should have been handled in the same manner but was not done.

Hi, I have a naive question on how to generate LLVM IR for inline functions. I have compiled this C code: *inline void func1()* * {* * int x=3;* * }* * void func2()* * {* * func1();* * int y = 4;* * }* into LLVM IR, using clang -emit-llvm -S -c <filename> But the generated LLVM IR file does *not* have func1() expanded (see below for the relevant parts). *; Function Attrs: nounwind

Hello, I am looking for a loop unfolding procedure implemented in LLVM that helps to transform a while-loop to n-layer If-statements. The transformation should be on IR, although the example below is illustrated on the source level. original loop: * WHILE (condition) DO action ENDWHILE* Expected unfolded loop (2-layer): * IF (condition) THEN* * action* * IF

Thank you, kcc. I am unsure if I misunderstand your reply. It seems that trace-bb, rather than trace-pc, fits better for my problem, given that my instrumentation is to put before each conditional statement. Do I misunderstand something here? " Tracing basic blocks <http://clang.llvm.org/docs/SanitizerCoverage.html#id11> With -fsanitize-coverage=trace-bb the compiler will insert

Ok. I can make a copy of the unique_ptr before moving it into the builder's constructor and use the copy later on. It is confusing to require a unique_ptr. Frank On 09/14/2016 12:11 PM, Frank Winter via llvm-dev wrote: > I am constructing the engine builder in the following way: > > llvm::SMDiagnostic Err; > unique_ptr<Module> Mod = getLazyIRFileModule("f.ll",

It is $target dependent. I’m curious what makes you think it is $host dependent. Thanks, Taewook On 3/3/17, 5:10 PM, "Jonathan Roelofs" <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: On 3/3/17 12:23 PM, Taewook Oh wrote: > Thanks Jon. Actually I tried “x86_64-linux”, but it makes the test “Unsupported” from my linux machine, and it was because my test is under

Thanks Jon. Actually I tried “x86_64-linux”, but it makes the test “Unsupported” from my linux machine, and it was because my test is under clang, not llvm. It seems that clang doesn’t support “x86_64-linux” yet. Thanks again! Best, Taewook On 3/3/17, 10:57 AM, "Jonathan Roelofs" <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: On 3/3/17 11:46 AM, Taewook Oh via llvm-dev

[+llvmdev, -llvm-dev] (Oopsies, llvmdev doesn't have a hyphen in it like all the others do) On 6/17/14, 10:45 AM, Jonathan Roelofs wrote: > [+llvm-dev, cfe-dev] > > Was "Re: [PATCH] ARM: allow inline atomics on Cortex M" > > On 6/17/14, 10:42 AM, Jonathan Roelofs wrote: >> >> >> On 6/17/14, 9:35 AM, Renato Golin wrote: >>> On 17 June 2014

I don't see a way to create a ConstantDataVector from Constant or form APFloat though. Did I oversee that? Is the solution to had a new get function in ConstantDataVector to allow that? Any hint on what would be the right fix otherwise? Thomas -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Roelofs [mailto:jonathan at codesourcery.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 10:30 AM To: Raoux, Thomas

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com > wrote: > How about per-thread if the counter is hot enough? > Err. How do you know if the counter is hot w/o first profiling the app? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Eric, Attached are patches for llvm and clang that implement this. I've made 'none' a component that must be added explicitly (i.e. don't turn arm-eabi into arm--none-eabi, but rather turn it into arm--unknown-eabi) to try to reduce surprises. It also keeps the normalization logic a bit simpler than it would otherwise have to be. SPIR triples were one place where I was

Hola LLVMers, I'm looking to make use of the vectorization primitives in the Intel chip with the code we generate from LLVM and so I've started experimenting with it. What is the state of the machine code generated for vectors? In my tinkering, I seem to be getting some wonky machine instructions, but I'm most likely just doing something wrong and I'm hoping you can set me in

Hi, all I want to instrument a program automatically so that it prints "hello" before each conditional statement. For example, consider the function P below. int P(int x) { if (x<3) if (x>0) return 1; return 0; } Let P_instrum be the instrumented version of P. It is expected that: -- P_instrum(1) prints two "hello"s --

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: >> Again, I asked the LLVM list if, since LLVM is a typed assembly >> language, if I could just look for pointer plus offset followed by a >> dereference. They seemed to suggest that looking for that idiom would > JFTR, we're one big community, and it's not as segregated

Thanks Dan and Jon. I made an incorrect assumption that the "use" iterator was actually giving me the "user" when de-referencing it. Did it always have this behavior in previous LLVM versions? I've seen lots of examples of the "use" iterator being dereferenced and resulting Instruction pointer being treated as the "user"? Thanks, Zack On Tue, Jun 9,

Jon, > You want: > TaintVar->insertAfter(FirstI); This worked! Thank you. On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > > > On 8/25/16 7:01 AM, Shehbaz Jaffer via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> I tried an alternative way of adding instruction by first getting the >> first instruction of the basic block, and then

2015-03-12 10:49 GMT-05:00 Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com>: > You need to build a sysroot from the lib and include directories in > ~/research/musl-1.1.6 combined with the same folders from > /usr/local/arm-2009q, then use `--sysroot` instead of the `-I`s and `-L's. I copied everything from the lib in musl-1.1.6 to