search for: constructcompileunits

Displaying 9 results from an estimated 9 matches for "constructcompileunits".

Did you mean: constructcompileunit
2009 Jun 28
3
[LLVMdev] Error when running llc to compile .bc to .s
Dear staff, I downloaded an llvm version from the svn trunk at June 12, because the released 2.5 version can not support "gcc -g -Ox", and x=1,2,3. I use the version in svn to compile an httpd.bc file succefully with dbgstoppoint() functions. However, when I use llc to compile the bc file to .s file (llc -f -o httpd.s httpd.bc), I met this error (the httpd.bc file will be
2011 Dec 19
2
[LLVMdev] DwarfDebug craziness
>From DwarfDebug.cpp: >/// GetOrCreateSourceID - Look up the source id with the given directory and >/// source file names. If none currently exists, create a new id and insert it >/// in the SourceIds map. This can update DirectoryNames and SourceFileNames >/// maps as well. >unsigned DwarfDebug::GetOrCreateSourceID(StringRef FileName, >
2009 Mar 04
2
[LLVMdev] Nested functions
...that if I compile either if them, I would get the same failure as I did with foo.bc. That is not the case. I get a different assertion failure when I compile either of them with llc which is as follows: llc: <llvm-src>/llvm/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfWriter.cpp:2808: void llvm::DwarfDebug::ConstructCompileUnits(): Assertion `Root->hasLinkOnceLinkage() && Root->hasOneUse() && "Malformed compile unit descriptor anchor type"' failed. This makes it hard for me to easily create a test case and submit a bug report. Hence, I thought I should take this opportunity to delve de...
2011 Dec 19
0
[LLVMdev] DwarfDebug craziness
Josh Matthews wrote: >> From DwarfDebug.cpp: > >> /// GetOrCreateSourceID - Look up the source id with the given directory and >> /// source file names. If none currently exists, create a new id and insert it >> /// in the SourceIds map. This can update DirectoryNames and SourceFileNames >> /// maps as well. >> unsigned
2009 Mar 04
0
[LLVMdev] Nested functions
...hem, I would get the same failure as I did with > foo.bc. That is not the case. I get a different assertion failure > when I compile either of them with llc which is as follows: > > llc: <llvm-src>/llvm/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfWriter.cpp:2808: > void llvm::DwarfDebug::ConstructCompileUnits(): Assertion `Root- > >hasLinkOnceLinkage() && Root->hasOneUse() && "Malformed compile > unit descriptor anchor type"' failed. This is because bugpoint tool does not understand debug info intrinsics. To avoid this, when you generate foo.bc with -emit-ll...
2009 Mar 04
0
[LLVMdev] Nested functions
Hi Bharadwaj, > I get the following error during compilation using the LLVM cross-compiler > (x86_64->arm). > > error: nested functions are disabled, use -fnested-functions to re-enable yes, nested functions are disabled by default in llvm-gcc (not sure why - maybe a historical hang over from the days when they were not supported?). > With -fnested-functions switch, I get the
2009 Jun 27
0
[LLVMdev] Patch for llvm::DepthFirstIterator.h and llvm::PostOrderIterator.h
Hi Olaf, This patch looks good to me. I just have a few minor comments: > + inline df_iterator() { CurrentTopNode = 0; /* End is when stack is empty */ } Should the comment here be updated to say that the End is reached when the stack is empty and when CurrentTopNode is null? > + inline void toNext() > + { LLVM style puts the open brace on the same line as the function name.
2009 Mar 04
2
[LLVMdev] Nested functions
I get the following error during compilation using the LLVM cross-compiler (x86_64->arm). error: nested functions are disabled, use -fnested-functions to re-enable With -fnested-functions switch, I get the following error: <llvm-src-dir>/llvm/lib/Target/ARM/ARMISelLowering.cpp:1439: virtual llvm::SDValue llvm::ARMTargetLowering::LowerOperation(llvm::SDValue, llvm::SelectionDAG&):
2009 Jun 26
3
[LLVMdev] Patch for llvm::DepthFirstIterator.h and llvm::PostOrderIterator.h
Hi @clang and @llvm, attached you'll find a patch dealing with some iterator issues I already mentioned in both lists. Since there was no reaction I cross-post again - now IMHO production-ready code. The patch is considered to get checked-in out of the box. It should not affect the behavior of existing and working code. I really need it for clang AST processing. Changes: 1. Both