llvm dev - Feb 2008 - [LLVMdev] Code Extractor Issue

I'm having an issue with the CodeExtractor.  When I try to extract the lone
basic block from the following function, I get an assertion error.


define i32 @test(i32 %x) {
        %tmp = call i32 @test3( i32 %x )                ; <i32> [#uses=1]
        ret i32 %tmp
}

The assertion error is:

lli: Dominators.cpp:71: void llvm::DominatorTree::splitBlock(llvm::BasicBlock*):
Assertion `NewBB->getTerminator()->getNumSuccessors() == 1 &&
"NewBB should have a single successor!"' failed.
lli((anonymous namespace)::PrintStackTrace()+0x22)[0x87f7cb8]
lli((anonymous namespace)::SignalHandler(int)+0x110)[0x87f7f7c]
/lib/tls/libc.so.6[0x59fa48]
/lib/tls/libc.so.6(abort+0x129)[0x5a1319]
/lib/tls/libc.so.6(__assert_fail+0x101)[0x598f41]
lli(llvm::DominatorTree::splitBlock(llvm::BasicBlock*)+0xb7)[0x874edff]
lli[0x86b2672]
lli[0x86b2b15]
lli(llvm::ExtractCodeRegion(llvm::DominatorTree&,
std::vector<llvm::BasicBlock*, std::allocator<llvm::BasicBlock*> >
const&, bool)+0x39)[0x86b321d]

I just updated to llvm-2.1 from llvm-1.9 where I was never having this problem. 
I don't understand exactly what it's complaining about (maybe the fact
that the terminator instruction is a 'ret' instruction?, but I don't
see why it couldn't handle this kind of a block).

Thanks,
Ben Mayne

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080201/e4b0e519/attachment.html>

Please file a bug. Thanks.

Evan

On Feb 1, 2008, at 12:03 PM, Ben Mayne wrote:
> I'm having an issue with the CodeExtractor.  When I try to extract  
> the lone basic block from the following function, I get an assertion  
> error.
>
>
> define i32 @test(i32 %x) {
>         %tmp = call i32 @test3( i32 %x )                ; <i32>  
> [#uses=1]
>         ret i32 %tmp
> }
>
> The assertion error is:
>
> lli: Dominators.cpp:71: void  
> llvm::DominatorTree::splitBlock(llvm::BasicBlock*): Assertion `NewBB- 
> >getTerminator()->getNumSuccessors() == 1 && "NewBB
should have a
> single successor!"' failed.
> lli((anonymous namespace)::PrintStackTrace()+0x22)[0x87f7cb8]
> lli((anonymous namespace)::SignalHandler(int)+0x110)[0x87f7f7c]
> /lib/tls/libc.so.6[0x59fa48]
> /lib/tls/libc.so.6(abort+0x129)[0x5a1319]
> /lib/tls/libc.so.6(__assert_fail+0x101)[0x598f41]
> lli(llvm::DominatorTree::splitBlock(llvm::BasicBlock*)+0xb7) 
> [0x874edff]
> lli[0x86b2672]
> lli[0x86b2b15]
> lli(llvm::ExtractCodeRegion(llvm::DominatorTree&,  
> std::vector<llvm::BasicBlock*, std::allocator<llvm::BasicBlock*>
>
> const&, bool)+0x39)[0x86b321d]
>
> I just updated to llvm-2.1 from llvm-1.9 where I was never having  
> this problem.  I don't understand exactly what it's complaining  
> about (maybe the fact that the terminator instruction is a 'ret'  
> instruction?, but I don't see why it couldn't handle this kind of a
> block).
>
> Thanks,
> Ben Mayne
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080205/25e8af56/attachment.html>