similar to: [LLVMdev] Confusion about Alias Analysis Results -print-no-aliases&&-print-alias-sets

Hi I have this simple c code for which I would like to use for alias analysis. #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> static int (*fp) (void); void ind_call (int (*compr)(void)){ fp = compr; fp(); } int hello(void){ return printf("hello world\n"); } int main(){ ind_call(hello); return 0; } So, I do the following: bin/opt -basicaa

Hi all, Are you sure that the problem here is with the nocapture flag and not with the noalias? Removing noalias from the function definition of @f results in the expected output. My guess is that something goes wrong in determining that *%q can be based on %p through @g which results in a 'no alias' relation for the two where there should be a 'may alias' result. For

I collected a sequence of LLVM instructions, want to make a copy of each and insert them into a PREVIOUS location inside the same function (all globals and locals are properly declared before the PREVIOUS location). Here is the list of instructions I want to duplicate and insert: 0 %90 = load i32* @strstart, align 4 1 %91 = add i32 %90, 2 2 %88 = load i32* @ins_h, align 4 3 %92 =

Hi Chuck, > std::vector<Instruction *>::iterator p; > Instruction * pi = PREVIOUS_POSITION; > BasicBlock * pb = PREVIOUS_POSITION->getParent(); > > for(p = coll.begin(); p != coll.end(); ++p){ > Instruction * CurI = * p; > Instruction * CloneI = CurI->clone(); clone doesn't know have any magical way of knowing that it should update the instruction's

I'm having trouble with R CMD INSTALL Rmpi_0.5-5.tar.gz --configure-args=~/lam lam is is installed locally. lamboot -d (or lamboot-d and also recon) works. make -k check from the lamtest suite passes all tests. Is this is problem with the -fPIC compiler as in the message? Should it be modified in the Makefile? Any help or comments are appreciated, thanks. * Installing to library

Thanks for the quick response. I wrote some code to search “llvm.dbg.cu” for the function (right before the failed assertion): if (TheCU == nullptr) { errs() << "compile unit: " << TheCU << "\n scopeNode(" << FnScope->getScopeNode() << ") => " << *FnScope->getScopeNode() << "\n"; auto fn =

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Brandon Holt <bholt at cs.washington.edu> wrote: > Thanks for the quick response. > > I wrote some code to search “llvm.dbg.cu” for the function (right before the > failed assertion): > > if (TheCU == nullptr) { > errs() << "compile unit: " << TheCU << "\n scopeNode(" << >

In your transform I'd take a look at things like the individual basic blocks you're replacing and the functions you're replacing and making sure that the various lexical blocks are being changed at the same time... -eric On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:12 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Brandon Holt <bholt at

How do I find and update the lexical blocks? Is, for example, “CloneFunction” doing this in a way I can copy? I tried finding the subprogram node in “llvm.dbg.cu” and updating the function: DISubprogram s(*subprog_iter); if (s.getFunction() == F) { s.replaceFunction(NF); } But this didn’t seem to have any effect. Do I need to do something similar with every basic block or something? On Dec

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Brandon Holt <bholt at cs.washington.edu> wrote: > In a pass I’m working on, I’ve done some manipulation of several functions, replacing them with new copies with different types, etc. > > The LLVM IR passes the verifier, but when I have debug symbols enabled (“-g”), I get the following error when Clang generates the Dwarf info (using a very recent

I'm having trouble figuring out what the error "Instruction does not dominate all uses!" means. I'm trying to construct a call to a function with two parameters. The printed IR, with error, looks like this: define i32 @add(i32, i32) { EntryBlock: %2 = add i32 %0, %1 ret i32 %2 } define i32 @eval_expr() { EntryBlock: ret i32 <badref> } Instruction does not dominate

In a pass I’m working on, I’ve done some manipulation of several functions, replacing them with new copies with different types, etc. The LLVM IR passes the verifier, but when I have debug symbols enabled (“-g”), I get the following error when Clang generates the Dwarf info (using a very recent build of LLVM/Clang from Git mirror): > Assertion failed: (TheCU && "Unable to find

Hi David, I'm seeing an assertion failure when passing this node !{i32 786454, metadata <badref>, metadata <badref>, metadata !"fn_t", i32 5, i64 0, i64 0, i64 0, i32 0, metadata <badref>} ; [ DW_TAG_typedef ] [fn_t] [line 5, size 0, align 0, offset 0] [from ] as the function type parameter to DIBuilder::createFunction, due to this check in DebugInfo.cpp:

edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > I'm having trouble figuring out what the error "Instruction does not > dominate all uses!" means. I'm trying to construct a call to a function > with two parameters. The printed IR, with error, looks like this: > > define i32 @add(i32, i32) { > EntryBlock: > %2 = add i32 %0, %1 > ret i32 %2 > } > > define i32

Dear Staff, Here are some questions on the output formats of AliasSetTracker. The code is as below: int G1 = 9; int G2 = 5; int main() { int * XX; int * YY; XX = &G1; YY = XX; YY = &G2; XX = &G2; } The output for -anders-aa is: Alias Set Tracker: 5 alias sets for 4 pointer values. AliasSet[0xea6fb0,0] may alias, Mod/Ref 10 Call Sites: void ({ }*)*

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi David, I'm seeing an assertion failure when passing this node > > !{i32 786454, metadata <badref>, metadata <badref>, metadata !"fn_t", i32 > 5, i64 0, i64 0, i64 0, i32 0, metadata <badref>} ; [ DW_TAG_typedef ] > [fn_t] [line 5, size 0, align 0, offset 0] [from ]

Quoting Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>: Dear Eli, Thanks very much for your reply. I have modified the XX and YY to be global variables, but the output of AliasSetTracker are still MUST alias: Alias Set Tracker: 5 alias sets for 4 pointer values. AliasSet[0xea55d0,0] may alias, Mod/Ref 8 Call Sites: void ({ }*)* @llvm.dbg.func.start, void (i32, i32, { }*)*

Hi, LLVM community: I found basicaa seems not to tell must-not-alias for __restrict__ arguments in c/c++. It only compares two pointers and the underlying objects they point to. I wonder how clang does alias analysis for c/c++ keyword restrict. let assume we compile the following code: $cat myalias.cc float foo(float * __restrict__ v0, float * __restrict__ v1, float * __restrict__ v2, float *

Hi, Your problem is that the function arguments, which are makes as noalias, are not being directly used as the base objects of the array accesses: > %v0.addr = alloca float*, align 8 > %v1.addr = alloca float*, align 8 > %v2.addr = alloca float*, align 8 > %t.addr = alloca float*, align 8 ... > store float* %v0, float** %v0.addr, align 8 > store float* %v1, float** %v1.addr,

Hi Eric, On 10/04/13 00:20, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> Hi David, I'm seeing an assertion failure when passing this node >> >> !{i32 786454, metadata <badref>, metadata <badref>, metadata !"fn_t", i32 >> 5, i64 0, i64 0, i64 0, i32 0, metadata <badref>} ;