diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'llvm/lib')
| -rw-r--r-- | llvm/lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp | 26 |
1 files changed, 22 insertions, 4 deletions
diff --git a/llvm/lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp b/llvm/lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp index c773b806428..99ad4a1e29a 100644 --- a/llvm/lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp +++ b/llvm/lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp @@ -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); + } + } + } |
