similar to: LLVM Error: Unsupported library call operation

Hello List, I am on the hook to instrument a piece of legacy LLVM IR code, and then we are planning to feed to the SeaHorn framework for some model checking tasks. After the instrumentation, I tried to use llc (version 3.9) to compile the IR code, and it works fine. However, when I try to use llc (version 3.8.1, the default llvm version of SeaHorn) to compile the IR code, it shows the following

Have you looked at these? https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html https://llvm.org/docs/ExtendingLLVM.html On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 9:06 AM div code via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Of course, in this sense they are not platform-dependent. I just want to > write a semantics-correct version of such intrinsics and let my static > analyzer goes smoothly. > > On

Hi folks, We would like to add SeaHorn <http://seahorn.github.io/> and Crab-llvm <https://github.com/seahorn/crab-llvm> to the list of LLVM's users on http://llvm.org/Users.html under Open Source Projects. The descriptions would be: 1. SeaHorn | An Algorithmic Logic-Based Reasoning Framework. 2. Crab-llvm | A static analyzer based on abstract interpretation for LLVM. I attach a

Hello, I am basically working on a static analysis project on LLVM IR, and the problem is that I will need to simulate the execution of a few LLVM Intrinsic, such as llvm.bswap.i160, and llvm.ctlz.i256. I am wondering if there has been some already implemented sample code, regarding these intrinsics? Either C or LLVM IR. Thanks a lot! Best, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Hi LLVM, This is my idea I had some time ago, when I realized that LLVM did not support legalization of some arithmetic instructions like mul i256. I have implemented very simple and limited version of that in my project. Is it something LLVM users would appreciate? 1. The pass transforms IR and is meant to be run before CodeGen (after IR optimizations). 2. The pass replaces

Hi Ma, how can I transform the llvm.memcpy into data move loop IR and eliminate > the bitcast instruction ? > I'm not sure why you are concerned about memcpy and bitcasts, but if you call MCpyInst->getSource() and MCpyInst->getDest() it will look through casts and give you the 'true' source/destination. If you want to get rid of memcpy altogether, you can take a look

On 31 Jan 2018, at 17:36, Jakub (Kuba) Kuderski via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > If you want to get rid of memcpy altogether, you can take a look at this pass: https://github.com/seahorn/seahorn/blob/master/lib/Transforms/Scalar/PromoteMemcpy.cc . There are at least four different places in LLVM where memcpy intrinsics are expanded to either sequences of

Hello, I’m trying to port a project up to 4.0 and I’m seeing the following error: In file included from /Users/jaredcarlson/Projects/llvm-4.0.0.src/include/llvm/ADT/StringRef.h:13: /Users/jaredcarlson/Projects/llvm-4.0.0.src/include/llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h:139:13: error: no type named 'type' in 'std::__1::result_of<std::__1::pointer_to_unary_function<llvm::DSNode *, llvm::DSNode

Hi, I'm looking for interprocedural AAs and have, of course, found https://llvm.org/docs/AliasAnalysis.html. However, the AAs that come bundled with LLVM do not work interprocedurally in a way that I need it (on/with stack variables). The two interesting looking AAs come with the optional `poolalloc' module that hasn't been updated in years (I guess

I've been playing around with LLVM to write a backend for a rather "simple" (co-)processor. Assume that only three arithmetic instructions exist: ADD mod N, SUB mod N and MUL mod N. The modulus N is programmable and stored in a register. No ordinary arithmetic instructions are available. The word size is 256-bit. In other words, the following function, b + c mod N, corresponds to

Hi, I have a small JIT project based on MCJIT. The generated LLVM IR code uses the i256 type. Also, the jitted code has to call back the host application from time to time. E.g. it calls a function i256 @callback(i256). 1. Can the callback function be implemented on the host application side (C/C++) to match the ABI used for the call by MCJIT? Or maybe the i256 has be to be casted to

Hi Alberto, I have not used this myself, but I think you should be able to visit your Instruction ‘users()’. I think the name this function was given is a bit confusing, but this returns an iterator range you can iterate through to find instructions that depend on a given one. Similarly, you have the function ‘uses()’ that can be used to traverse down the DAG when instructions are still on SSA

Hi, My personal opinion: Just to be sure I understand what you're considering: you want to write a backend that will produce optimized machine code for a device with modular arithmetic instructions (not simulate such a device on a standard CPU)? In which case, won't the same assumptions that are embodied in the transformations for the case of unsigned 2's complement arithmetic (in

Thanks for your insightful suggestions. Yes, I am programming for a real device that does modular arithmetic (and only modular arithmetic). The modulus N is fixed during a single launch of a program. One way I could also come up with is to simply use add i256 %a, %b to represent a + b mod n, and let LLVM passes to reason about possible optimizations. However these are not semantically identical

Hello all I have a very simple handwritten .ll file that can be translated to native assembly on x86_64 when I use i128. But if I use i256 I get an error. see the file and the first line of the error below. Any help is appreciated! I played a little bit with target datalayout but it didn't help. Best Ehsan Input File: target datalayout =

Hi, Following is excerpted from http://llvm.org/releases/3.1/docs/LangRef.html#int_ctpop. How come the return type needs to be consistent with parameter type? i64/i128 seems to be overkill, and i8, i16 are inconvenient. ----------------------------------- declare i8 @llvm.ctpop.i8(i8 <src>) declare i16 @llvm.ctpop.i16(i16 <src>) declare i32 @llvm.ctpop.i32(i32

bswapdi2 for i386 is correct Bits 31:0 of the source are loaded into edx. Bits 63:32 are loaded into eax. Those are each bswapped. The ABI for the return is edx contains bits [63:32] and eax contains [31:0]. This is opposite of how the register were loaded. ~Craig On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:36 AM Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > bswapsi2 on the x86-64 isn't using

Dear all, I have a for loop which includes nls model estimation. The loop breaks after the first non-convergence error. How can I make the loop continue and try to estimate all models? I suppose it should be sth like: if(...) { next } but I have no idea how to setup the arguements... Thank you! Irene

Dear Developers, I am a Master's student at the ECE department of the University of Florida, USA.​​ For my research project, supervised by Prof. Mark Tehranipoor<http://tehranipoor.ece.ufl.edu/> and Prof. Farimah Farahmandi<http://farimah.ece.ufl.edu/>, I need to use Clang LLVM DataflowSanitizer library in KLEE. However, I have faced some difficulties (explained below) while

Hi @ll, targetting i386, LLVM/clang generates wrong code for the following functions: unsigned long __bswapsi2 (unsigned long ul) { return (((ul) & 0xff000000ul) >> 3 * 8) | (((ul) & 0x00ff0000ul) >> 8) | (((ul) & 0x0000ff00ul) << 8) | (((ul) & 0x000000fful) << 3 * 8); } unsigned long long __bswapdi2(unsigned long