similar to: relation between address spaces and physical memory locations

On 23 Mar 2016, at 11:35, Mohammad Norouzi <mnmomn at gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the reply. > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 10:43 AM, James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> wrote: > Hi, > > Address spaces in LLVM are an abstract concept and LLVM attaches no internal meaning to address spaces, apart from: > > - Location 0 in address space 0 is

Hi, Address spaces in LLVM are an abstract concept and LLVM attaches no internal meaning to address spaces, apart from: - Location 0 in address space 0 is 'nullptr' and a pointer to this cannot be dereferenced in a well formed program. - pointers in different address spaces cannot alias. Different backends attach different meanings. So for example an OpenCL backend might interpret

Hi, Is it feasible to assign different DataLayout to different address space in the same LLVM IR module? Thanks Hongbin On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 8:01 PM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 23 Mar 2016, at 11:35, Mohammad Norouzi <mnmomn at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at

Sorry i'm using the following code: F = (cast<CallInst>(BI))->getCalledFunction(); for (auto& A : F->getArgumentList()) { errs() << "------- " << A.getName() << " " << "11" << "\n"; } But how can I get the parameters (as e and f in the example)? Thank you and best, Mo On

what about the memory address of e and f? can i get them? Thank you and best, Mo On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > On 10 March 2017 at 15:49, Mohammad Norouzi <mnmomn at gmail.com> wrote: > > for (auto& A : cast<CallInst>(BI)->arg_operands()) > > errs() << "--- " << A->getName()

I tried the original posted code again: for (auto& A : cast<CallInst>(BI)->arg_operands()) errs() << "--- " << A->getName() << "\n"; but it prints empty (only ---)! Thank you and best, Mo On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > On 10 March 2017 at 15:41, Mohammad Norouzi <mnmomn at

I'm writing a pass that eliminates some variables. To show the effect of the pass i need to show that I deleted the variables that originally appear in the user code, not temporary variables added by llvm. On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:39 AM, Mohammad Norouzi via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at

Hi, I need to check if a variable belongs to the program originally. Consider the following code line: y = x + 4 and its corresponding llvm ir (roughly): %16 = load i32 %x %add = add i32 %16, i32 4 store i32 %add, %y I need to distinguish between %16, %add and %x, %y. Any help is appreciated. Best, Mohammad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Thanks David for your reply! However, OK is called inside nqueens. So, the same stack space cannot be used/reused for both of them. Best, Mohammad On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:43 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > You printed &j and &solutions - did you mean to print 'solutions' instead > of '&solutions' Because 'solutions' and

Hi, Is it possible to get debug information after optimization? for example, source code line numbers of instructions in an ir that is optimized by O2? Best, Mohammad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160303/af4f46a7/attachment.html>

Hi all, How can i find the instruction that uses the result of a load instruction. For example: %16 = load i32, i32* %ptr %add = add i32 4, %16 In this case, i would like to get the add instruction. Best, Mo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160204/bdef6f63/attachment.html>

Hi Everyone, Does anyone know to get function parameters? For example, I want to get e and f in the call to function foo in the following code: foo(inr a , int b){ .... } main() { int e,f; e=10; f=22; *foo(e,f);* } I use the following code: for (auto& A : (cast<CallInst>(BI))->arg_operands ()) errs() << A.dump(); but I get a and b instead. Thank you

Hi, Could anyone please help me understand why Clang reallocates the same memory address for different variables while their lifetime intersect? Here is an example code: #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <memory.h> #include <alloca.h> /* Checking information */ static int solutions[] = { 1, 0, 0, 2, 10, /* 5 */

> Hi, > > I need to check if a variable belongs to the program originally. Consider > the following code line: > > y = x + 4 > > and its corresponding llvm ir (roughly): > > %16 = load i32 %x > %add = add i32 %16, i32 4 > store i32 %add, %y > > I need to distinguish between %16, %add and %x, %y. > > > You might be able to use the Debug information

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > > On 01/07/2015 12:05 PM, Matt Arsenault wrote: >> >>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 01/07/2015 11:52 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote:

> On Jan 7, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > > On 01/07/2015 11:52 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: >> >>> On Jan 7, 2015, at 2:25 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com <mailto:resistor at mac.com>> wrote: >>> >>> I'm not aware of any such restriction, and I know of several LLVM based systems

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, David Neto wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Peter Collingbourne wrote: >> >> The more I think about it, the more I become uncomfortable with the >> concept of language-specific address spaces in LLVM.  These are the >> main issues I see with language-specific address spaces: > > ... > >> Instead of language-specific

>>> I'd like to emphasise in the latter one: "This option also relaxes the precision of >>> commonly used math functions." >> >> Isn't this the "libm" flag that is proposed in this thread? > > I don't know. I didn't see any definition of it. > > In my case I'm talking about allowing the use of lower precision but

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 04:14:09PM -0400, Justin Holewinski wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>wrote: > > > Hi Justin, > > > > Thanks for bringing this up, I think it's important to discuss > > these issues here. > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 09:46:28AM -0400, Justin Holewinski wrote: > >

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>wrote: > Hi Justin, > > Thanks for bringing this up, I think it's important to discuss > these issues here. > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 09:46:28AM -0400, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > It is becoming increasingly clear to me that LLVM address spaces are not > the > > general solution