search for: blocktochain

Dear NVPTX community, I've create a bug http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13521 with reprocase for this issue. Please, help us to fix it. Last 1,5 months we regularly encounter & workaround or fix 1-2 bugs per week in NVPTX backend. This is definitely not the amount of work we can completely serve ourselves... We would really really appreciate some collaboration. Thanks, - D.

Unfortunately, I cannot reproduce this. Based on your bugzilla comment, it does look like a mis-compile with your system compiler. Does the same issue occur if you build LLVM as static libraries? On 08/03/2012 12:24 AM, Dmitry N. Mikushin wrote: > Dear NVPTX community, > > I've create a bug http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13521 with > reprocase for this issue. > >

Hi, After building out project in release mode, caught an assertion, which we have not seen before: hello_f: /tmp/rpmbuild_debug/BUILD/llvm/build/include/llvm/ADT/DenseMap.h:126: void llvm::DenseMap<KeyT, ValueT, KeyInfoT>::clear() [with KeyT = llvm::MachineBasicBlock*, ValueT = <unnamed>::BlockChain*, KeyInfoT = llvm::DenseMapInfo<llvm::MachineBasicBlock*>]: Assertion

...Some random notes: - Please add a description of the algorithm. - Please add a comment to the BlockChain class. - Use a separate anonymous namespace per class, and don't indent for the namespace. +BlockChain *BlockPlacement2::CreateChain(MachineBasicBlock *BB) { + Chains.push_back(BlockChain(BlockToChain, BB)); + BlockToChain[BB] = &Chains.back(); + assert(ActiveChains.insert(&Chains.back())); + return &Chains.back(); +} Whoa, you are storing pointers into a growing vector. You should at least assert(Chains.size() != Chains.capacity()) before pushing. + RequiredChain->BBEnd...

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > >> >> On Oct 18, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: >> >> As for why it should be an IR pass, mostly because once the selection >>> dag runs through the code, we can never

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > > On Oct 18, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > As for why it should be an IR pass, mostly because once the selection dag >> runs through the code, we can never recover all of the freedom we have at >> the IR level. To start with, splicing MBBs around requires known about