Should I just copy and paste the content of the .ll file? Thanks, Chengyu> On Dec 9, 2014, at 4:35 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Thanks for the IR snippet (I agree, it does look like the order is >>> reasonable there), but it's not really enough to debug the problem. We >>> need an actual Module we can compile and examine to have a hope of >>> finding out what's going on. >> >> You mean the source code I'm compiling? > > The whole .ll file you pulled those lines from looks like it would be > most useful (assuming we're right that the IR is sound). If that > fails, we can move further back to the C source in some form or > another. > > Cheers. > > Tim.
On 9 December 2014 at 13:41, Chengyu Song <csong84 at gatech.edu> wrote:> Should I just copy and paste the content of the .ll file?Well, an attachment would probably be a bit easier to deal with, but I can cope with copy/paste. Cheers. Tim.
On 9 December 2014 at 13:46, Chengyu Song <csong84 at gatech.edu> wrote:> Then I will attach, and it is compiled with -O0I thought you said the problem occurred at O1 and O2? Does it happen at O0 as well? We need source that actually produces the problem to work out what's going on. Cheers. Tim.
I'm not sure, I was never able to compile the whole kernel with -O0, too many errors. Plus, the problem seems to be within machine code generation. I tried opt -O1 and -O2, the generated .ll file does not diff much for the target function (insert_leaf_info). Thanks, Chengyu> On Dec 9, 2014, at 4:49 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9 December 2014 at 13:46, Chengyu Song <csong84 at gatech.edu> wrote: >> Then I will attach, and it is compiled with -O0 > > I thought you said the problem occurred at O1 and O2? Does it happen > at O0 as well? We need source that actually produces the problem to > work out what's going on. > > Cheers. > > Tim.