similar to: [LLVMdev] Could I explicitly tell clang not inline some functions?

> On 1/26/11 2:40 PM, songlh at cs.wisc.edu wrote: >> thanks! >> >> After I check the ll file, I find this: >> >> %1 = load %struct.nsAString** %aBuf_addr, align 4, !dbg !2048 >> %2 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.nsAString* %1, i32 0, i32 0, !dbg >> !2048 >> %3 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.nsISupports* %2, i32 0, i32 0, !dbg >> !2048

On 1/26/11 3:00 PM, songlh at cs.wisc.edu wrote: >> On 1/26/11 2:40 PM, songlh at cs.wisc.edu wrote: >>> thanks! >>> >>> After I check the ll file, I find this: >>> >>> %1 = load %struct.nsAString** %aBuf_addr, align 4, !dbg !2048 >>> %2 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.nsAString* %1, i32 0, i32 0, !dbg >>> !2048 >>> %3

> On 1/26/11 3:00 PM, songlh at cs.wisc.edu wrote: >>> On 1/26/11 2:40 PM, songlh at cs.wisc.edu wrote: >>>> thanks! >>>> >>>> After I check the ll file, I find this: >>>> >>>> %1 = load %struct.nsAString** %aBuf_addr, align 4, !dbg !2048 >>>> %2 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.nsAString* %1, i32 0, i32 0, !dbg

> On 1/26/11 3:06 PM, songlh at cs.wisc.edu wrote: >>> [snip] >>> -- John T. >> Sorry, I am asking the second question. >> " >> how to determine, within an LLVM pass, what the >> possible target(s) of an indirect function call might be? > > There are at least two solutions. > > The first is to use the CallGraph analysis pass. It

thanks! After I check the ll file, I find this: %1 = load %struct.nsAString** %aBuf_addr, align 4, !dbg !2048 %2 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.nsAString* %1, i32 0, i32 0, !dbg !2048 %3 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.nsISupports* %2, i32 0, i32 0, !dbg !2048 %4 = load i32 (...)*** %3, align 4, !dbg !2048 %5 = getelementptr inbounds i32 (...)** %4, i32 10, !dbg !2048 %6 = load i32 (...)**

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jingyue Wu" <jingyue at google.com> > To: "songlh" <songlh at cs.wisc.edu>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:50:12 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] how to choose which alias analysis used in my pass? > > > Isn't -basicaa the default alias analysis already? No, -basicaa is added

Hi, I want to use memory dependence analysis in my pass, but I feel the default alias analysis is not precise enough. How could I choose to use another alias analysis algorithm? I have tried opt -load mypass.so -basicaa xx.bc > /dev/null. But I feel the alias analysis algorithm does not change. Do I need to add something in my codes? Thanks a lot! Best,

Hi, I just notice that front-end will add an extra block for switch instruction without default. How could I identify basic blocks added due to this reason? The added codes looks like: sw.default.i625: ; preds = %if.end512 tail call void @fancy_abort(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([38 x i8]* @.str, i64 0, i64 0), i32 3045, i8* getelementptr inbounds

Hi everyone: The code I am analyzing is : int main() { int i = 0; printf("hello world!"); printf( "%d" , i ); } I want to get each place where printf is called, and the argument used during that call. so I write llvm pass code like: void Myfunction( Function & F){ for( Function::iterator b = F.begin() , be = F.end() ;

On 1/26/11 2:40 PM, songlh at cs.wisc.edu wrote: > thanks! > > After I check the ll file, I find this: > > %1 = load %struct.nsAString** %aBuf_addr, align 4, !dbg !2048 > %2 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.nsAString* %1, i32 0, i32 0, !dbg !2048 > %3 = getelementptr inbounds %struct.nsISupports* %2, i32 0, i32 0, !dbg !2048 > %4 = load i32 (...)*** %3, align 4, !dbg !2048

Thanks a lot! I finally fix my problem. My code is like this: //CallInst* pCall pCall is a printf called in my situation if( ConstantExpr * pCE = dyn_cast<ConstantExpr>( pCall->getArgOperand(0))){ if( GlobalVariable * pGV = dyn_cast<GlobalVariable>( pCE->getOperand(0))){ if( ConstantArray * pCA = dyn_cast<ConstantArray>(

Hi: My llvm code is: for( BasicBlock::iterator i = b->begin() , ie = b->end(); b != be ; b ++ ){ if( CallInst * pCall = dyn_cast<CallInst>(i)){ pCall->dump(); // Function * pFunction = pCall->getCalledFunction(); if( !pFunction ){ } std::string fname = pFunction->getName(); } } The dump result

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ashutosh Nema" <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> > To: "songlh" <songlh at cs.wisc.edu>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:20:27 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] question about licm > > Hi, > > LICM can only hoist instructions which dominates all loop exit > blocks. > In this case

On 1/26/11 3:06 PM, songlh at cs.wisc.edu wrote: >> [snip] >> -- John T. > Sorry, I am asking the second question. > " > how to determine, within an LLVM pass, what the > possible target(s) of an indirect function call might be? There are at least two solutions. The first is to use the CallGraph analysis pass. It constructs a conservative call graph, meaning that

hi, I applied licm with basicaa on the following codes: int j = atoi(argc[1]); int lower[] = {10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1}; int upper[] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10}; for(i = lower[j]; a[i] < 100 && i < upper[j]; i ++); I notice that upper[j] is not hoisted out from the loop. Is this because j could be larger than 10? Thanks a lot! Best,

On 1/26/11 2:07 PM, songlh at cs.wisc.edu wrote: > Hi: > > My llvm code is: > > for( BasicBlock::iterator i = b->begin() , ie = b->end(); > b != be ; b ++ ){ > if( CallInst * pCall = dyn_cast<CallInst>(i)){ > > pCall->dump(); // > Function * pFunction = pCall->getCalledFunction(); > if(

Hi, I am wondering whether the latest llvm-gcc version is 4.2. This is the latest version I can find on llvm web site. Thanks a lot! Best, Linhai

songlh at cs.wisc.edu wrote: > Hi everyone: > > The code I am analyzing is : > > int main() > { > int i = 0; > printf("hello world!"); > printf( "%d" , i ); > } > > > > I want to get each place where printf is called, and the argument used > during that call. > > so I write llvm

Hi, I notice that there are several different methods called inside getAnalysisUsage(). The parameters of addRequiredID and addPreservedID are passID. What is the difference between Required and Preserved? There are also function named addRequired<PassName>() called. What is the difference between addRequired<PassName>() and addRequiredID(PassID)? Thanks a lot! Best,

Hi John, Thanks a lot for the reply! I try mem2reg opt and also implement the algorithm proposed in "Efficiently Counting Program Events with Support for On-line Queries" to place the local counter smarter. If I build the executable by using -O0, the overhead would be 20% - 30%. But if I build the executable by using -O2, the overhead would be more than 3X. I feel instrumenting counter