similar to: Need help in creating clone functions

I just wrote an IR Verifier check that catches the following situation: ; RUN: not llvm-as %s -disable-output 2>&1 | FileCheck %s define void @f1() !dbg !4 { unreachable } ; CHECK: DISubprogram attached to more than one function define void @f2() !dbg !4 { unreachable } !llvm.dbg.cu = !{!1} !1 = distinct !DICompileUnit(language: DW_LANG_C99, file: !2) !2

This is of course not homework. I am trying to understand how fast math optimizations work in llvm. When I compared IR for both the programs, the only thing I have noticed is that fdiv and fmul are replaced with fdiv fast and fmul fast. Not sure what happens in fdiv fast and fmul fast. I feel that its because d/max is really small number and fast-math does not care about small numbers and consider

I am sorry to not make my question clear. My question is how this value is calculated without having fadd and fsub in IR? On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > Neither 1e16 or 1e16+1 can be accurately represented in a double. The > largest integer than be accurately represented is 2^53. As the number gets > larger floating sacrifices

Hello, I have followed steps given in - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29910051/integrating-llvm-passes/48142693#48142693 <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29910051/integrating-llvm-passes/48142693#48142693>, to integrate my pass with pass manager and run it with clang. I am able to run my pass with opt - opt -mypass but when I try to run it with clang, I always get an error -

Can you send me a patch with instructions to reproduce? I can take a look. -- adrian > On Jun 15, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > Yes, it does for us. My tree is couple days off the tip, and I see it there. > > Sergei > > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Keno Fischer via llvm-dev > Sent:

Hi, I have below code in C - int main() { double x,y; x = 1e16; y = (x + 1) - x; printf("y:%e\n", y); return 0; } llvm bitcode looks like this for this function - ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable define dso_local i32 @main() local_unnamed_addr #0 { entry: %call = tail call i32 (i8*, ...) @printf(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([4 x i8], [4 x i8]* @.str, i64 0, i64

(though, usual caveat: you /usually/ shouldn't be doing that - instead relying only on whatever semantics the IR actually carries, rather than implying extra semantics based on the demangled name) On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:48 PM Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I have not tried it but maybe > > `std::string llvm::demangle(const

I was just going to say: With well-formed debug info it should create a deep copy up until the DISubprogram, but no further. But because the DISubprogram linked to the Function is missing the special handling of the DISubprogram (that would prohibit cloning the DICompileUnit is side-stepped). But then I remembered the discussion we had in

Hello, LLVM IR flattens out the structure with one integer element to i32. Is there any way to disable this? I want to preserve the type information of the structure. I tried compiling the program with O0, it maintains the type for most of the instructions but for all. Regards, Sangeeta -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi! We are currently working on a science project and implemented a FunctionPass that clones a function (more precisely a constructor of a struct/class) and adds a parameter. First, we create a new function with a new function type, which includes the newly added parameter: Function *NF = Function::Create(NewFTy, F.getLinkage(), F.getName() + "Cloned", F.getParent()); and after

- old Keno +current Keno > On Jun 19, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > In your example the instructions in the cloned function have debug locations belonging to a different function, and the function itself is missing a DISubprogram metadata attachment. > >> (lldb) p OldFunc->dump() >> >> ; Function Attrs: nounwind optsize

The if you are cloning into the same LLVM module the CU should not cloned. If don't mind sharing your code, I can try to help diagnose why the CU gets cloned... just send me a patch that applies to trunk and instructions. -- adrian > On Jun 16, 2017, at 1:54 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > Sorry… It takes a pass that was not accepted for upstreaming….

Hello, I am doing some program analysis with C++ programs. I need to check if some particular function is called in the program, for that I need the name of the function being called in the call instruction. Since C++ mangles the name of the function, I need a way to demangle the function name in llvm IR. Is there any way to achieve that in llvm pass? Regards, Sangeeta -------------- next part

Do you pull clang under llvm/tools and compile it as well? In theory, if `opt` recognize the option, so does `clang -mllvm`. 2018-01-12 8:47 GMT+08:00 sangeeta chowdhary <sangitachowdhary at gmail.com>: > Hello, > > I have tried giving this option like this > > clang -c -emit-llvm -mllvm -rdetector hello.c -c -o hello.bc > but I am getting error " Unknown command

This all looks very similar to a bug in the cloning stuff I fixed recently, so would be indeed good to know if this is still happening on master. On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > If you are doing this work based off LLVM trunk, could you send me your > patch to reproduce the problem? > > -- adrian > > On

I have taken SimplePass and added in Transform directory, “libLLVMSimplePass.a” is built but I can not see this pass in opt —help. I don’t even see the name of pass while registering it in the example. > On Jan 13, 2018, at 7:35 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 13 Jan 2018, at 03:45, Craig Topper via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

Peter, I am afraid I am missing a big picture with debug info cloning. Certainly after your patch (and possibly in some cases earlier): Cloning: Reduce complexity of debug info cloning and fix correctness issue. Commit r260791 contained an error in that it would introduce a cross-module reference in the old module. It also introduced O(N^2) complexity in the

Hello All, I am instrumenting IR to pass addres of the function to runtime but I am getting error - Instruction does not dominate all uses. I used M.dump() to get below dump, not able to figure out what I am doing wrong. Any help would be much appreciated. define dso_local double @mysqrt(double %val1) local_unnamed_addr #0 { entry: %0 = bitcast double (double)* @mysqrt to i8* %1 = call

On 14 Jan 2018, at 00:14, sangeeta chowdhary <sangitachowdhary at gmail.com> wrote: > > I have taken SimplePass and added in Transform directory, “libLLVMSimplePass.a” is built but I can not see this pass in opt —help. I don’t even see the name of pass while registering it in the example. The SimplePass example is intended to be built out of tree, so I’ve no idea what happens if you

I'm trying to create a clone of a function using Function::Create() and CloneFunctionInto. However, I'm running into an issue. I believe that the instructions in the function clone still have Use edges to values in the original function. This is a problem for my purposes. For example, consider an original function F. I create a new function G belonging to the same module and call