similar to: LLVM 3.8.0 - Adding new instruction to a basic block

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 3:20 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Simona Simona via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I'm trying to add a new instruction after a given instruction in a basic >> block. >> Until LLVM 3.7, I was using the following code:

Why not just use Instruction::insertAfter()? I->insertAfter(new_inst); On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Ryan Taylor via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Try incrementing the iterator before using. > > On Sep 5, 2016 10:26, "Simona Simona via llvm-dev" < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 3:20 AM, Daniel

Hi all, Recently I have implemented a transformation pass based on LLVM3.5 and its function is to duplicate the function's argument list in a bytecode file and replace all use of original function with modified function. In LLVM3.5, the pass can work properly. However, when I tried to transplant the pass to LLVM3.9, the error "Argument value does not match function argument type!"

+llvm-dev > On 2016-Feb-09, at 12:54, Harris, Kevin <Kevin.Harris at unisys.com> wrote: > > Duncan, > Kevin Harris here, from Unisys. In our application, generating LLVM IR, we have several instances of code that looks like this: > > . . . > Value* pDS; > . . . > auto argIt = pFunc->arg_begin(); >

Hi llvm-devel, I have migrated my codebase from llvm-3.6 to llvm 3.8.1-stable. Although I was able to resolve most of the problems, I am facing issues resolving the following: To insert an instruction immediately after the first instruction within a basic block, I first get all instructions in my basic block in an instruction container list. Once that is done, I insert my new instruction in the

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

all subexpression inside an ir_assignment needs to be tagged as precise. Signed-off-by: Karol Herbst <karolherbst at gmail.com> --- src/mesa/state_tracker/st_glsl_to_tgsi.cpp | 80 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/mesa/state_tracker/st_glsl_to_tgsi.cpp b/src/mesa/state_tracker/st_glsl_to_tgsi.cpp index c5d2e0fcd2..19f90f21fe

Hello, Is there an iterator to iterate over a "range" of instructions in a Function? "range" meaning from an instruction::iterator up to an other instruction::iterator which either: - point to instructions in the same basic block (the first one first, second one second) - point to instructions in different basic block (the BB of the first dominate the BB of the second, and

Hi, I have added an insertAfter method to the ilist and Instruction classes. The methods are implemented as efficiently as the currently existing insert and insertBefore methods. The insertAfter method was created to mirror a similar method in another compiler in order to ease an ongoing port. The patch, which is very small is included as AddInsertBefore.patch. Additionally, I wrote a small test

Dear Peter, thank you very much for your answer. My problem is that I need to calculate the following quantity: solve(chol(A)%*%Y) Y is a 3*3 diagonal matrix and A is a 3*3 matrix. Unfortunately one eigenvalue of A is negative. I can anyway take the square root of A but when I multiply it by Y, the imaginary part of the square root of A is dropped, and I do not get the right answer. I tried

"Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: >> On 2015-Oct-20, at 11:23, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >> >> I think the implicit iterator conversions are much less important >> now that we have range based for loops, but I still like having >> them. > > IMO, if a developer has an ilist iterator

Within a basic block this is just normal iterator usage/manipulation: for (instr : llvm::make_range(FromInstruction.getIterator(), ToInstruction.getIterator())) { ... } Use std::next() on ToInstruction.getIterator() if you want it included. - Matthias > On Apr 9, 2018, at 10:04 AM, Alexandre Isoard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > Is there

Hello, # I am able to install.packages("gstat") #but when I try to upload I get an error message library(gstat) #Error in loadNamespace(j <- i[[1L]], c(lib.loc, .libPaths()), versionCheck = vI[[j]]) : # there is no package called ‘intervals’ #In addition: Warning message: #package ‘gstat’ was built under R version 3.0.2 #Error: package or namespace load failed for ‘gstat’ what do

John Criswell wrote: > Small nitpick: in Instruction.cpp, the comment for insertAfter says > insertBefore and not insertAfter. > :) > > -- John T. > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > Thanks for spotting

It works! But Once I have the square root of this matrix, how do I convert it to a real (not imaginary) matrix which has the same property? Is that possible? Best, Simon >----Messaggio originale---- >Da: p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk >Data: 21-nov-2009 18.56 >A: "Charles C. Berry"<cberry at tajo.ucsd.edu> >Cc: "simona.racioppi at

Hi, Is there a known problem with file locks when Samba restarts? I have several servers happily running Samba on RH Linux, and several hundred clients running M$ Win9x. There are always a large number of open files, and I am currently migrating the data off several NT servers and onto the Samba ones. This has meant changing the smb.conf file on a regular basis. I am restarting Samba using

Hi Geoff, Firstly, I think it will be great if you have a small reproducer of this issue (which I can make fail after re-applying D18001 to ToT). > I’ve run into what appears to be a bug in ScalarEvolution, but I’m not sure > if it is instead caused by me missing an implicit assumption between LSR and > SCEV. > > This issue is caused by the change D18001, which is an attempt to

Hello David, I am having an issue with some custom intrinsics that return a token value: InstCombine deletes the users of the token but not the instruction that creates the token itself. The IR is still valid but it's wasted. The source of the issue is coming from an old patch of yours: commit 7204cff0a121ebc770cf81f7f94679ae7324daae Author: David Majnemer <david.majnemer at

Hi All, I've run into what appears to be a bug in ScalarEvolution, but I'm not sure if it is instead caused by me missing an implicit assumption between LSR and SCEV. This issue is caused by the change D18001 <http://reviews.llvm.org/D18001> , which is an attempt to increase SCEV-inserted instruction re-use by picking a more canonical insertion position in the case where a new

virtual std::vector<Value *> getESetArgumentosFunc(Function *F){ std::vector<Value *> varg_list; varg_list.clear(); for(Function::arg_iterator arg_iti = F->getArgumentList().begin(), arg_ite = F->getArgumentList().end(); arg_iti != arg_ite; ++arg_iti){ Value *para = ConstantInt::get(IntegerType::get(getGlobalContext(),32), 0); *Value *val2 = cast<*