similar to: Inserting instructions when encountered a specific label

Hi Tim, Thank you for the quick response! so you'd probably check you're looking at a BranchInst and check BI->getSuccessor(0)->getName() (& 1 if it's conditional) I initially was printing out the result from getName() (I.getParent()->getName()) and it printed out nothing sadly. when parsing the instructions in SelectionDAGBuilder but it was only visiting instructions in

Hello, I am trying to insert a .byte/.word in the beginning of a specific LLVM IR instruction when it prints out in assembly (the inserted ‘instruction' only appears in assembly, not in LLVM IR), and I am guessing the best way to do that is to insert it in SelectionDAG as it strips down some LLVM IR instructions when it’s lowered. Can I get some guidance on what function I should use to insert

Hi Tim, Thank you for that. I was just trying to replicate the branch instruction under a new opcode, so I don’t think that returns a value. Plus the code I was testing out didn’t have a br or my newly added instruction but it still threw that error at me. Here’s the IR code I tested: ; ModuleID = ‘cc.c’ source_filename = “cc.c” target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128”

Hello, I'm finding problems with BackEdgeTaken count calculation in even simple fortran loops with gfortran-4.6 + DragonEgg 3.0. Even for simple double loops like this one: program test2 integer i,j,k dimension k(100,100) do j=1,100 do i=1,100 k(i,j) = i enddo enddo write(*,*) k(1,30) end make the ScalarEvolution

Attached 2012/2/8 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > Mmm, sorry, the patch I posted crashes if ExitBr is null (which it may > be ...) , this one should be ok (and passess all the ScalarEvolution > tests in LLVM): > > diff --git a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp > index daf7742..b10fab2 100644 > ---

I duplicated an instruction in llvm and changed its opcode by following the guide at https://llvm.org/docs/ExtendingLLVM.html (Adding a new instruction) and then fixed the dependencies that caused an error when building. Now the modified llvm builds but throws but now throws the error: llc: error: llc: check.ll:12:3: error: instruction expected to be numbered '%5' %4 = alloca i32, align

Well, it wasn't intended as a "real" patch to be included , but more as a "proof of concept" for a solution. Do you think it is a valid solution and I'm correct in my assumption? If so then I'll clean up the patch and attach a testcase for inclusion. Thanks! Marcello 2012/2/9 Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com>: > Your patch should include a testcase,

This is the .ll for that graph (attached). I think I understand what you are saying. This particular testcase returns CNC not because the exit block doesn't have a unique predecessor, but because the unique predecessor (the inner loop block) has a successor that is inside the loop (in this case itself, because it's the inner loop block). That doesn't change, anyway, the assuption that

Mmm, sorry, the patch I posted crashes if ExitBr is null (which it may be ...) , this one should be ok (and passess all the ScalarEvolution tests in LLVM): diff --git a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp index daf7742..b10fab2 100644 --- a/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp +++ b/lib/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.cpp @@ -4293,9 +4293,15 @@

Your patch should include a testcase, see test/Analysis/ScalarEvolution for examples. "BranchInst* " should be "BranchInst *". You should have spaces after the // in your comments. One of the comment lines isn't indented properly. Nick On 8 February 2012 12:05, Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com> wrote: > Attached > > 2012/2/8 Marcello Maggioni

On 8 February 2012 15:50, Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com> wrote: > Well, it wasn't intended as a "real" patch to be included , but more > as a "proof of concept" for a solution. Do you think it is a valid > solution and I'm correct in my assumption? If so then I'll clean up > the patch and attach a testcase for inclusion. > I'm

This is instead a very simple (handmade) test case that triggers the problem (attached) Also a more conforming patch has been attached 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > This is the .ll for that graph (attached). I think I understand what > you are saying. > This particular testcase returns CNC not because the exit block > doesn't have a unique predecessor,

FInally I had the time to complete everything up. Now I included the test case in the patch and the testcase runs with the LLVM tests system. 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > This is instead a very simple (handmade) test case that triggers the > problem (attached) > Also a more conforming patch has been attached > > 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms

hi, my code inherits InstVisitor class, and visitBranchInst() method. however, i notice that inside the virtual method visitBranchInst(BranchInst &I), on the LLVM instruction like: br i1 %1, label %2, label %3 my code doesnt return expected info. for ex, the code I.getCondition->getName().str() would return empty string. and at the same time, the code I.getSuccessor(0)->getName()

Hi, I just thought of trying vmkit and checked out the source from the svn repo a few minutes back. The build is failing with the following error. llvm[4]: Compiling CGCleanup.cpp for Release+Asserts build CGCleanup.cpp:507:36: error: no member named 'getCaseSuccessor' in 'llvm::SwitchInst'; did you mean 'getSuccessor'?

Hi, this is a bit of a newbie question: I am trying to discover, given a block with a conditional and its successors, which condition (T/F) each successor applies to. There's almost identical code in CFGPrinter.cpp, but where it gets called in GraphWriter.h, the child_iterator type is a pretty hairy thing, so I still don't quite understand how to get one from a BasicBlock in my own

Moving to LLVM dev to discuss the possibility of extending the cast infrastructure to handle this. On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:51 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > On Nov 18, 2012, at 5:05 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> TypeLoc casting looks bogus. >> >> TypeLoc derived types return true from classof when the dynamic type >>

Hi, I got a problem when I am trying to add a dummy basic block. Let say there are two blocks, A and B. A----->B I am trying to generate new BB called C which is located between A and B, but not break the edge of AB. The graph is like the following A---->B \ / \ / C There is new BB 'C' with edges AC and CB. It is kind of like what breakcriticaledge pass does.

Hi All, I need to remove successors from every basic block to insert new ones I tried this code, but it doesn't work void RemoveSuccessor(TerminatorInst *TI, unsigned SuccNum) { assert(SuccNum < TI->getNumSuccessors() && "Trying to remove a nonexistant successor!"); // If our old successor block contains any PHI nodes, remove the entry in the //

Dear LLVM developers, I have a question regarding the IPSCCP class and the handling of dead blocks: The file lib/Transforms/Scalar/SCCP.cpp of llvm 2.8 from contains some code to deal with a dead block which could not be folded (line 1909ff). This happens when a user of this dead block is a branch or switch with an undef condition. The action taken than is to replace this terminator with an