[llvm-dev] Break nested instructions?

[mats petersson via llvm-dev]

On 16 October 2015 at 12:21, Irini Stavrakantonaki <istavrak at ics.forth.gr>
wrote:

>
>
> On 16/10/15 14:09, mats petersson wrote:
>
>> I think it's important to understand that this is not ALWAYS the case.
>> The operands can be either a constant expression or an instruction.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>>      char *a;
>>      int x;
>>
>>      if(cond) a = "%d";
>>      else a = "%x";
>>      printf(a, x);
>>
>> In this case, the compiler may still be able to convert to constant
>> expression for `a`, depending on if it's able to deduce `cond`. But if
>> `cond` is not "constant", `a` will be a GEP instruction, not a constant
>> expression.
>> (Of course, the compiler will probably also warn that passing a variable
>> to printf is a bad idea, but that's a different matter)
>>
>> --
>> Mats
>>
> Does this mean that we can have a nested instruction into an instruction?!
> Wouldn't that lead having a LLVM IR language without terminals?
>

Interesting point, I'm not sure - but the operand on an "instruction" is a
Value, so I expect it can be any type that is within the Value class
hierarchy?

--
Mats

>
>
> --istavrak
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151016/45f4bca0/attachment.html>