similar to: Difference between “uses” and “user”

Hi. This is part of my code: ... if (auto* op = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(&I)) { Value* lhs = op->getOperand(0); Value* rhs = op->getOperand(1); Value* mul = builder.CreateMul(lhs, rhs); for (auto& U : op->uses()) { User* user = U.getUser(); user->setOperand(U.getOperandNo(), mul); } I.eraseFromParent(); } ... This leads to the following

Hi. Thanks. I changed the code but the problem exists. This is my new code which is again very simple: ... bool runOnFunction(Function &F) override { vector<Instruction *> dels; dels.clear(); for (inst_iterator It = inst_begin(&F), Ie = inst_end(&F); It != Ie;) { Instruction *I = &*(It++); if (auto* op = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(I)) { IRBuilder<NoFolder>

LLVM is built in Release mode. The version is 6.0.0. I think that a similar code worked on verison 3.9.0. It is probably a null pointer dereference occurring in eraseFromParent(). I checked and reconfirmed that the instruction had no uses. Perhaps I should rebuild LLVM. Thanks. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 9:03 PM, mayuyu.io <admin at mayuyu.io> wrote: > Hmmmm that’s strange. Do you get an

Thanks Bjorn! But The problem is still there. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:04 AM, Björn Pettersson A < bjorn.a.pettersson at ericsson.com> wrote: > It looks quite dangerous to erase the instruction I inside the loop when > iterating over all instructions in the function. > I guess it depends on how the range based iterator is implemented if that > works or not. > > I think

The code is really simple. But I can not the reason for the segmentation fault. I only know that the eraseFromParent() function leads to it. The whole code is: ... bool runOnFunction(Function &F) override { for (auto &I : instructions(F)) { if (auto* op = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(&I)) { IRBuilder<> builder(op); Value* lhs = op->getOperand(0); Value* rhs =

Why is the first for loop not equivalent to the second? Thanks, Rob =========================== for (GlobalVariable **i = Globals.begin(), **e = Globals.end(); i != e; ++i) { GlobalVariable *GV = *i; Constant *GEP = ConstantExpr::getGetElementPtr(...); GV->replaceAllUsesWith(GEP); } =========================== for (GlobalVariable **i = Globals.begin(), **e = Globals.end(); i != e;

If I have a data frame where a species occupies several rows with different phases such as (both col's ar factors): species,phase Populus tremula,1 Populus tremula,2 Populus tremula,3 Calluna vulgaris,1 Calluna vulgaris,2 Betula alba,1 Betula alba,2 Betula alba,3 Primula veris,1 Primula veris,2 and another df where each species only have one row: species,growth_form Populus tremula,tree Acer

Dear all, I have a data frame with different variables and I want to build different subsets out of this data frame using some conditions and I want to use a loop because there will be a lot of subsets and this would be saving a lot of time. I try to give you an overview about my data frame. I have a data frame named "Baumdaten" and it has one column named "transectID" with

Hi, I'm trying to change all uses of a global variable so they'll use a different global variable. For instance, I have: @a = global [100 x [100 x i64]] zeroinitializer, align 16 @b = global [100 x [100 x i64]] zeroinitializer, align 16 And I want to change the use %arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds [100 x [100 x i64]]* @a, i32 0, i64 %3 to %arrayidx = getelementptr inbounds

On Apr 16, 2008, at 2:50 AM, heisenbug wrote: > > And now here is my educated speculation: > There are 2 things that became slower > 1) Use::getUser() > 2) Use::get/set due to tagging. > > The former is seldom called: > > $ find lib -name "*.cpp" | xargs grep "getUser(" | wc -l > 41 The majority of those aren't actually Use::getUser, but

On Apr 16, 2:13 am, Dan Gohman <goh... at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Gabor, > > Can you provide performance data for this? I'd > like to know what affect these changes have on > compile time. Hi Dan, Unfortunately, no. I can feed you with some speculation, though, see below. The reason why I cannot do measurements (at the moment) is that - I have no experience with

There is incompatibility between R strptime and musl libc. I posted about it on their mailing list, but they need more information I can't provide, so I'm forwarding the message here in hope R developers can help. Thanks. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rich Felker <dalias at libc.org> Date: Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [musl] strptime() question To: Alba

@Simon. Here's what I did. I checked out R revision 70059. Ran export r_cv_libc_stack_end=no. (otherwise it would give that error we talked about before) Ran ./configure --without-recommended-packages. (otherwise it would complain of not finding ./src/library/Recommended/MASS_*.tar.gz) Ran make. Ran make check. Log is here - http://pastebin.com/raw/cGJgqB8p What do you think? Is there

Use *last = nullptr; for (Use &U : Src->uses()) last = &U; last->getUser()->dump(); Or any better solution? 2018-04-20 19:19 GMT+02:00 Dávid Bolvanský <david.bolvansky at gmail.com>: > Is: > > > 2018-04-20 18:07 GMT+02:00 Dávid Bolvanský <david.bolvansky at gmail.com>: > >> Hello, >> >> Code: https://godbolt.org/g/EG4Wi6

Hello, today I download poolalloc from " https://github.com/llvm-mirror/poolalloc". and I compiled it with LLVM3.3. Then when I excute "make",I get the error: AddressTakenAnalysis.cpp:18:30:fatal error:llvm/IR/CallSite.h: No such file or directory. ​I correct the path of callsite.h to "llvm/Support/Callsite.h". there is another error: AddressTakenAnalysis.cpp:In

Here's what I did. svn checkout https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/ cd ./trunk aclocal -I m4 && autoconf tools/rsync-recommended cd .. mkdir build cd build ../trunk/configure make make check On make check it gives an error. Here's the log. http://pastebin.com/raw/1qfjqQY2 On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Simon Urbanek <simon.urbanek at r-project.org> wrote: > > On Feb

On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On 9 August 2014 02:03, Rob Jansen <jansen at cs.umn.edu> wrote: > > Why is the first for loop not equivalent to the second? > > In the second loop, "*ui" is an llvm::Use object. It's owned by a > User, but isn't a subclass of one. To match the

Hi all, I am almost ready for the last step with landing my long-standing patch. I have converted (almost) all low-level interface users of CallInst to respective high-level interfaces. What remains is a handful of hunks to flip the switch. But before I do the final commit I'd like to coerce all external users to code against the high-level interface too. This will (almost, but see below)

On Feb 25, 2010, at 2:24 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Thursday 25 February 2010 16:17:10 David Greene wrote: >> On Thursday 25 February 2010 16:07:59 Chris Lattner wrote: >>> On Feb 25, 2010, at 12:01 PM, David Greene wrote: >>>> I am seeing a whole lot of failures in the tests on trunk. From >>>> discussions with Chris and others, I should not be seeing

Hi, I was tracking down a performance regression and noticed that LoopStrengthReduce hoists loop invariants (e.g., the initial formulae of indvars) in the reverse order of how they appear in the loop. This reverse order creates troubles for the StraightLineStrengthReduce pass I recently add. While I understand ultimately SLSR should be able to sort independent candidates in an optimal order,