RPCS3/llvm-mirror
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/RPCS3/llvm-mirror.git synced 2024-11-24 11:42:57 +01:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Add a hack to check for a subset of true dominance properties

Browse Source 
llvm-svn: 2947
This commit is contained in:
Chris Lattner 2002-07-18 00:13:42 +00:00
parent b121676038
commit 9b1f5682b5
1 changed files with 22 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

26
lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp
View File

@ -6,9 +6,6 @@
// Note that this does not provide full 'java style' security and verifications,
// instead it just tries to ensure that code is well formed.
//
// . There are no duplicated names in a symbol table... ie there !exist a val
// with the same name as something in the symbol table, but with a different
// address as what is in the symbol table...
// * Both of a binary operator's parameters are the same type
// * Verify that the indices of mem access instructions match other operands
// . Verify that arithmetic and other things are only performed on first class
@ -194,6 +191,7 @@ void Verifier::visitTerminatorInst(TerminatorInst &I) {
// Ensure that terminators only exist at the end of the basic block.
Assert1(&I == I.getParent()->getTerminator(),
"Terminator found in the middle of a basic block!", I.getParent());
visitInstruction(I);
}
void Verifier::visitReturnInst(ReturnInst &RI) {
@ -294,6 +292,8 @@ void Verifier::visitCallInst(CallInst &CI) {
Assert2(CI.getOperand(i+1)->getType() == FTy->getParamType(i),
"Call parameter type does not match function signature!",
CI.getOperand(i+1), FTy->getParamType(i));
visitInstruction(CI);
}
// visitBinaryOperator - Check that both arguments to the binary operator are
@ -335,7 +335,7 @@ void Verifier::visitStoreInst(StoreInst &SI) {
}
// verifyInstruction - Verify that a non-terminator instruction is well formed.
// verifyInstruction - Verify that an instruction is well formed.
//
void Verifier::visitInstruction(Instruction &I) {
Assert1(I.getParent(), "Instruction not embedded in basic block!", &I);
@ -360,8 +360,26 @@ void Verifier::visitInstruction(Instruction &I) {
"Only PHI nodes may reference their own value!", &I);
}
// Check that void typed values don't have names
Assert1(I.getType() != Type::VoidTy || !I.hasName(),
"Instruction has a name, but provides a void value!", &I);
// Check that a definition dominates all of its uses.
// FIXME: This should use dominator set information, instead of this local
// hack that we have now.
//
for (User::use_iterator UI = I.use_begin(), UE = I.use_end();
UI != UE; ++UI) {
Instruction *I2 = cast<Instruction>(*UI);
// Same basic block?
if (I.getParent() == I2->getParent() && !isa<PHINode>(I2)) {
// Make sure the instruction is not before the current instruction...
for (Instruction *Test = I.getPrev(); Test != 0; Test = Test->getPrev())
Assert2(Test != I2, "Definition of value does not dominate a use!",
&I, I2);
}
}
}