similar to: [LLVMdev] Transforming SwitchInst to BranchInst

David, As you suggested, I try to compile the following test code: *include "llvm/IR/Instruction.h"#include "stdint.h"extern void callback(intptr_t);void foo(){ llvm::Instruction* i; intptr_t zzzz=static_cast<intptr_t>(i); callback(zzzz);}* but got this compilation error: * 'intptr_t' (aka 'long') is not allowed intptr_t

Hi, I wonder whether we can easily retrieve an LLVM instruction ID that uniquely identifies the instruction. In my case, I need to avoid using llvm::Instruction* directly. Given an 'inst' of type llvm::instruction*, is there some readily usable method as simple as "int id = inst->id( )"? Thanks. Zhoulai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

Hi, I have a naive question on how to generate LLVM IR for inline functions. I have compiled this C code: *inline void func1()* * {* * int x=3;* * }* * void func2()* * {* * func1();* * int y = 4;* * }* into LLVM IR, using clang -emit-llvm -S -c <filename> But the generated LLVM IR file does *not* have func1() expanded (see below for the relevant parts). *; Function Attrs: nounwind

Hello, I am looking for a loop unfolding procedure implemented in LLVM that helps to transform a while-loop to n-layer If-statements. The transformation should be on IR, although the example below is illustrated on the source level. original loop: * WHILE (condition) DO action ENDWHILE* Expected unfolded loop (2-layer): * IF (condition) THEN* * action* * IF

Thank you, kcc. I am unsure if I misunderstand your reply. It seems that trace-bb, rather than trace-pc, fits better for my problem, given that my instrumentation is to put before each conditional statement. Do I misunderstand something here? " Tracing basic blocks <http://clang.llvm.org/docs/SanitizerCoverage.html#id11> With -fsanitize-coverage=trace-bb the compiler will insert

Hi, I am using LLVM to develop a tool, using Mac OS 10.9. I have download llvm source and binary from http://llvm.org/releases/download.html I just find the BasicBlock.h file of the binary package clang+llvm-3.6.0-x86_64-apple-darwin/include/llvm/IR/BasicBlock.h is slightly different from that of the source llvm/include/llvm/IR/BasicBlock.h In particular, llvm:: getModule(..)

I'm trying to figure out how to feed a blockaddress to a switch condition AND destination (basically emulating an indirectbr via a switch; I know it's not a good approach, I'm just experimenting). Suppose I have the following: SwitchInst *s = SwitchInst::Create(...); BasicBlock *bb = ...; PtrToIntInst k = new PtrToIntInst(BlockAddress::get(bb), <TYPE>, "", s);

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Carlo Alberto Ferraris <cafxx at strayorange.com> wrote: > I'm trying to figure out how to feed a blockaddress to a switch condition > AND destination (basically emulating an indirectbr via a switch; I know it's > not a good approach, I'm just experimenting). > Suppose I have the following: > > SwitchInst *s =

Hi, if I want to know how switch instructions are handled in the backend, where do I have to look first? I'm not familiar with the backend framework and I couldn't figure out the interface between the LLVM instruction 'SwitchInst' and whatever there is in the backend. I would be very happy about every hint where I have to look to find the entry point of switch instructions in the

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 >>

On 7/26/05, Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 17:25 -0700, Michael McCracken wrote: > > > Since I'm modifying llc, I have a couple small questions about that code: > > > > opt and analyze (and a couple of other places) add a verifier pass, > > but llc doesn't. > > This would seem to make sense for llc as well -

Hi all, I was trying to implement an obfuscation tool for C-code on the basis of LLVM. I got a prototype of the simple obfuscation transformation which converting control flow graph to something like a state machine. I am not sure I will have time to work on extending further this tool with new transformations like opaque predicates and decided to put here source code I have by now with hope

The source is cloned from https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm Thanks. Zhoulai On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > > > On 4/9/15 9:58 AM, Zhoulai wrote: > >> Hi, I am using LLVM to develop a tool, using Mac OS 10.9. I have >> download llvm source and binary from >> >>

Hi, all I want to instrument a program automatically so that it prints "hello" before each conditional statement. For example, consider the function P below. int P(int x) { if (x<3) if (x>0) return 1; return 0; } Let P_instrum be the instrumented version of P. It is expected that: -- P_instrum(1) prints two "hello"s --

Hi, I am trying to prune some uninteresting llvm ir branches, corresponding to the *if-else* condition in the source code. And here is the procedures: 1. Get the BasicBlock containing the BranchInst which has 2 successors(in order to keep consistent with the source code I am using the llvm ir without any optimizations, so SelectInst/SwitchInst/PHINode is absent), one of which should be

Nella citazione lunedì 1 agosto 2011 08:13:12, Eli Friedman ha scritto: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Carlo Alberto Ferraris > <cafxx at strayorange.com> wrote: >> I'm trying to figure out how to feed a blockaddress to a switch condition >> AND destination (basically emulating an indirectbr via a switch; I know it's >> not a good approach, I'm just

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Nico <listiges at arcor.de> wrote: > Hi, > > if I want to know how switch instructions are handled in the backend, where do I have to look first? > I'm not familiar with the backend framework and I couldn't figure out the interface between the LLVM instruction 'SwitchInst' and whatever there is in the backend. > > I would be

Hi All, Value* V; Value* V2; BasicBlock * BB; unsigned j; ///number of cases .... //insert V , V2, j and BB SwitchInst* sw= builder.CreateSwitch(V, BB, j); ConstantInt * CI= dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(V2); sw-> addCase( CI , BB); At last step there is Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. What is wrong in the code? Thanks in advance -- * Rasha Salah Omar

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Michael McCracken wrote: >> I can't see any harm in that. However, please make sure that it really >> isn't being run. The verifier can be hidden by various levels of >> abstraction. > > Assuming that I get everything with -debug-pass=Structure, then it isn't: -debug-pass=Structure does list everything. If you add it, please add it in an

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'?