similar to: API to Differentiate between SSA and non SSA form

Hi all, I am trying to write a pass where i am creating a clone of a function (the only difference being, the new function returns void , instead of any value). I am creating a new Function Type with a void return type (rest being the same as original function), and using this i am creating a new function body. Then, i clone the body of the old function into new function, but when ever i

Hi , I am trying to clone a BasicBlock. I want both to co-exist and I have introduced a conditional branch to the original or the cloned BB. I tried mapping the original instruction and the clone as below : Instruction *NewInst = II->clone(); if (II->hasName()) NewInst->setName(II->getName()); NewBB->getInstList().push_back(NewInst); ValueMap[II] =

Hi, I'm gonna try to give some feedback, but I have only been working with LLVM for a few days, so don't take what I'm saying without verifying :-) > BasicBlock *ProgSlicer::CloneBasicBlock(const BasicBlock *BB, > DenseMap<const Value*, Value*> &ValueMap, > const char *NameSuffix, Function *F) { > > BasicBlock

Even if it still did add overhead, it seems perfectly reasonable, from a user's perspective (namely mine), that if I introduce unnecessary narrowing matchers to my chain that there may be a performance penalty. The ability to do the following easily outweighs any performance issues for me: anyOf ( /* hasName("..."), */ hasName("...") ) though C++ not allowing

>> Agreed. If ld64 can drop support for .o produced by the old gcc that >> would be awesome. Failing that, what is really needed is > Because of static archives, the linker has to support old .o files for quite a while. I also don’t know when clang starting getting this right. r123585 (Jan 16 17:19:34 2011) I think. > Also, this seems like linker complexity for a very

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 09:12 -0800, Sandra Johnson wrote: > Hi , > I am trying to clone a BasicBlock. I want both to co-exist and I have > introduced > a conditional branch to the original or the cloned BB. I have a pass I haven't commited that does just this. Well, it does so to implement Arnold and Ryder style profiling. I can send you a copy of that if you want (I hope to

Hi, I was trying to use the following code in a if condition I->getOperand(0)->hasName() where I is an instruction with following condition already true - I->getOpcode() == Instruction::Call When I compiled a C code with llvm-2.9, I see a function call with no operand name (for operand 0) . This happens for a function with varArgs. The interesting part is that the same C code when

Hello All, I am creating a Module and getting Function pointer as below in some function. Function *fn = module->getFunction(fnName); printf("func Name: %s.\n", fn->getName().str().c_str()); . . return (intptr_t) fn; This prints : "func Name: main." I convert the ptr to int and return it. Later I am receiving this as a Func Handler in other function

Hello Andrew , Yes , I have missed the phi node since my paths merge together. I'll try this out. I am implementing a timer based profiling scheme and hope your code will be useful for me. Please send me a copy of your code. Thanks Sandra Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 09:12 -0800, Sandra Johnson wrote: > Hi , > I am trying

Hi Piotr, Thanks. Yeah, it seemed a little weird, but it was what got me closest. I found out that the matcher I supplied here was working for clang-query 3.8.1. I'm working on a clang-tidy module for 4.0.0 - it's not working there. Could you elaborate on the "onImplicitObjectArgument"? There is no document on it on the clang page. So I wouldn't know how it works or what it

Hello, I have a couple of doubts, as listed below: 1. To list all the global variables in the module, I am iterating using type_iterator and for each Type I get, I am using value_iterator to iterate over Values . In the second iteration I am getting unexpected results. For each type obtained from type_iterator->second, value_iterator->first produces the same list as what

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:35 AM, ankur deshwal <a.s.deshwal at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I was trying to use the following code in a if condition > I->getOperand(0)->hasName() > > where I is an instruction with following condition already true - > I->getOpcode() == Instruction::Call > > When I compiled a C code with llvm-2.9, I see a function call with

Hi Piotr, I think I found a working matcher: match ifStmt(hasCondition(implicitCastExpr(hasImplicitDestinationType(isInteger()), has(cxxMemberCallExpr(callee(cxxMethodDecl(hasName("compare"))), hasArgument(0, declRefExpr().bind("str2")), callee(memberExpr(has(declRefExpr().bind("str1"))))))))).bind("case1") This one bind to both str1 and str2 in

Hi, I am trying to build llvm-2.1 and llvm-gcc4 but running into build errors and not getting the code base compiled successfully since quite a few time. My host OS: Linux(Debian-Ubuntu) My Host processor: i686 My target processor: Arm11/Arm9 Languages support needed: c, c++ host compiler version: gcc 4.0.1 I am getting errors while compiling LLVM and llvm-gcc both: The LLVM build error is

Hi Thomson, the new call to puts() is inserted right away, whereas the old call to printf() is removed a bit later in SimplifyLibCalls::runOnFunction(). If you browse the code a bit and backtrack the call stack to see what happens with the return value of PrintFOpt::OptimizeFixedFormatString(), you will stumble upon this segment in SimplifyLibCalls.cpp:1703ff.: // Try to optimize this call.

Hello, Trying to get my machine building up-to-date, and a nightly going, i ran into an assertion during the build of llvm-gcc 4.2: $ make -j2 <snip!> /home/chandlerc/code/compilers/build/llvm-gcc/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/chandlerc/code/compilers/build/llvm-gcc/./gcc/ -B/home/chandlerc/code/compilers/install/llvm-gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/bin/

On 11/23/2011 05:52 PM, Hal Finkel wrote: > On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 21:22 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: >> > On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 11:55 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: >>> > > Tobias, >>> > > >>> > > I've attached an updated patch. It contains a few bug fixes and many >>> > > (refactoring and coding-convention) changes inspired

Hello, I am a newbie to LLVM and right now I am on the hook to parse some IR code and do some instrumentations. However, my problem is that no matter how I tweak my parsing code, it simply cannot print out anything. So here is my C code: int your_fun(int arg2) { int x = arg2; return x+2; } And here is my parsing code: #include <llvm/IR/Module.h> #include

Hi Chandler, This looks like a FE error, so you probably won't be able to get an LLVM bitcode file for us. You could help by whittling the test case down to something managable. First get a preprocessed file. Then I would suggest following the instructions on this page to reduce the testcase: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/A_guide_to_testcase_reduction That will help us a lot with the bug

On Dec 4, 2009, at 12:40 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Bill, > >> Here's what I get with TOT compiling with -Os. The orig.ll is what >> I get before r72619. Notice that orig.ll has only one function in >> it. Both the one you sent and duncan.ll have more than one >> function. It's not the fact that more than one function is showing >> up, but