[llvm-dev] LLVM Block is not the basic block
Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue May 29 05:50:09 PDT 2018
> On 29 May 2018, at 22:40, Muhui Jiang via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Sorry, that the previous email is sent out before I complete it due to my mistake. Please read this
>
> I am using the LLVM function pass to help me to do code analysis. However, I found that the block LLVM identified will ignore the function call.
>
> For example, the below IR should not be a basic block.
>
>
> %call17 = call i32* @__errno_location() #14, !dbg !1384
> %18 = load i32, i32* %call17, align 4, !dbg !1384
> %19 = load i8*, i8** %dest_dirname, align 4, !dbg !1386
> call void (i32, i32, i8*, ...) @error(i32 1, i32 %18, i8* getelementptr inbounds ([3 x i8], [3 x i8]* @.str.389, i32 0, i 32 0), i8* %19), !dbg !1387
> br label %if.end18, !dbg !1388
>
> The corresponding binary i s below
>
> .text:0001A530 BL __errno_location
> .text:0001A534 LDR R1, [R0] ; errnum
> .text:0001A538 LDR R3, [SP,#0x100+var_100]
> .text:0001A53C LDR R2, =aS_1 ; "%s"
> .text:0001A540 MOV R0, #1 ; status
> .text:0001A544 BL error
> .text:0001A548 B loc_1A54C
>
> Here you can see it obviously should not be a basic block because you called two functions! So the control flow graph LLVM generated is also not the real control flow graph, right? Do anyone know why or give me some suggestions?
>
In LLVM, basic blocks can contain function calls. This allows partial and/or full code inlining.
The control flow graph (CFG) referred to in LLVM passes only include the LLVM basic blocks inside a function. In LLVM, only tail-call exits are considered terminator instructions (and thus will delineate the basic block boundaries).
If you want to see function-call graphs, you may want to look at CallGraphSCCPass instead of FunctionPass.
http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#the-callgraphsccpass-class
Cheers
-- Dean
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list