search for: disable_assert

Hello John, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> writes: [snip] > By the way, it looks like you don't have a build with assertions > enabled. I recommend compiling with > > gmake ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=0 DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=1 Shouldn't the above be DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=0 ? (which means DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=No, introducing the dreaded double negation which causes so much confusion on some people.) BTW, Debug+Asserts is the default mode in the configure&make build.

...object) and use the replaceAllUsesWith() method of the Instruction class to replace uses of the add with the integer. Then you can erase the add from the program. By the way, it looks like you don't have a build with assertions enabled. I recommend compiling with gmake ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=0 DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=1 if you're going to be developing an LLVM pass. -- John T. > > ................some rows about functions, that are not changed by my > pass. The errors occurs after it has modified a "@_Z3addii" function. > store i32 %b.0, i32* %4 and the type is ddddbbm 28 >...

I'm continuing my quest to integrate _GLIBCXX_DEBUG into the config system. I now have things at a point where I can configure llvm to build with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG and the llvm-gcc will pick up the correct CPPFLAGS automatically. One thing I noticed in the llvm Makefile.rules is this: # If DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=1 is specified (make command line or configured), # then disable assertions by defining the appropriate preprocessor symbols. ifdef DISABLE_ASSERTIONS BuildMode := $(BuildMode)-Asserts [...] else [...] endif This seems backward to make. If I configure with --disable-assertions I would expec...

...is, it’s pretty common for me > to do something that boils down to (with lots of steps in between of > course), “<src>/configure && make && make check && make > ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 && make check ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 && make > ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=1 && make check > ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=1”. Depending on what I’m > doing, I bounce back and forth between them. With cmake, I have to > have completely separate configured build directories. I already > have 10+ llvm build directories lying around that I reg...

Hi, Trying to build AOT version of vmkit java, building for that classpath glibj.zip: $ cd vmkit/tools/vmjc/libvmjc $ make ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=1 REQUIRES_FRAME_POINTER=1 has eventually, after 50 minutes, brought: <<< llvm[0]: Compiling glibj.zip to llvm llvm[0]: Optimizing glibj.zip llvm[0]: Compiling glibj.zip.bc to native UNREACHABLE executed! 0 llc 0x0000000000c0e04f 1 llc 0x0000000000c0fc4a 2 l...

Hi, Chris Lattner wrote: > This is fine to me in principle, but please make sure this doesn't > impact compile time or memory usage of llc somehow. OK. Any recommended way to do this? Is there some nice way to benchmark speed + memory consumption of llc in LLVM testing infra at the moment or should I just use 'top' to the inspect memory consumption and 'time' for speed

...; speed + memory consumption of llc in LLVM testing infra at the > moment or should I just use 'top' to the inspect memory consumption > and 'time' for speed measurements with a code generation from > a big bitcode? Please compare a release-asserts (make ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=1) builds with and without your patch. Just run 'llc' on a collection of large bc files (e.g. kimwitu++ from the testsuite, some SPEC2K6 programs if you have access to it, etc) and compare them. Thanks! -Chris

...med for those. That is, it’s pretty common for me to do something that boils down to (with lots of steps in between of course), “<src>/configure && make && make check && make ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 && make check ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 && make ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=1 && make check ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=1”. Depending on what I’m doing, I bounce back and forth between them. With cmake, I have to have completely separate configured build directories. I already have 10+ llvm build directories lying around that I regularly use. I’d pr...

...common for me >> to do something that boils down to (with lots of steps in between of >> course), “<src>/configure && make && make check && make >> ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 && make check ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 && make >> ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=1 && make check >> ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=1”. Depending on what I’m >> doing, I bounce back and forth between them. With cmake, I have to >> have completely separate configured build directories. I already >> have 10+ llvm build directories lying a...

Dear sir or madam, I am a 4-th year student at Yerevan State University, Armenia; and I am studying LLVM in order to write my Bachelor thesis. I am trying to write an llvm pass that just removes all "Add" commands and gives some statstics. Nevertheless, I get this segmentation fault: ................some rows about functions, that are not changed by my pass. The errors occurs after it

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek > <kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> >> On 4/17/2013 12:15 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> >>>

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Minas Abrahamyan <minas.subs at gmail.com> wrote: > Trying to build AOT version of vmkit java, > building for that classpath glibj.zip: > > $ cd vmkit/tools/vmjc/libvmjc > $ make ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=1 REQUIRES_FRAME_POINTER=1 > > has eventually, after 50 minutes, brought: > <<< > llvm[0]: Compiling glibj.zip to llvm > llvm[0]: Optimizing glibj.zip > llvm[0]: Compiling glibj.zip.bc to native > UNREACHABLE executed! > 0  llc             0x0000000000c0e04f &gt...

..._GLIBCXX_DEBUG into the config system. > I now have things at a point where I can configure llvm to build with > -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG and the llvm-gcc will pick up the correct CPPFLAGS > automatically. Okay. > > One thing I noticed in the llvm Makefile.rules is this: > > # If DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=1 is specified (make command line or configured), > # then disable assertions by defining the appropriate preprocessor symbols. > ifdef DISABLE_ASSERTIONS > BuildMode := $(BuildMode)-Asserts > [...] > else > [...] > endif > > This seems backward to make. If I conf...

...ail.com> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Minas Abrahamyan <minas.subs at gmail.com> > wrote: > > Trying to build AOT version of vmkit java, > > building for that classpath glibj.zip: > > > > $ cd vmkit/tools/vmjc/libvmjc > > $ make ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=1 REQUIRES_FRAME_POINTER=1 > > > > has eventually, after 50 minutes, brought: > > <<< > > llvm[0]: Compiling glibj.zip to llvm > > llvm[0]: Optimizing glibj.zip > > llvm[0]: Compiling glibj.zip.bc to native > > UNREACHABLE executed! > > 0...

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> > To: "İsmail Dönmez" <ismail at donmez.ws> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 8:14:18 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Lots of regtest failures on PPC64/Linux > > Hi Ismail, > > Is

Török Edwin wrote: > Are you using 2.6 or 2.7, 32-bit or 64-bit? > I use 2.7 on i386. lli has debug asserts enabled, but I guess this shouldn't matter for JIT code speed. jit: 11.32 real exe: 7.64 user Both have -O3 option. Speed should be the same. Yuri

...his is a sharedlib I had to configure LLVM with > - --enable-pic --enable-optimize, but I used no other configure options... > should I have? Are there features that can be disabled to reduce footprint? LLVM uses a lot of strings in assertion messages. building with 'ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=1' will give a significantly smaller build than just an optimized build. Also, there are lots of options for strip that you can play with. Finally, there is still a lot that can be done to reduce code size. For example, building a JIT links in the .s file printers in, and they have n...

..., Jul 19, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Minas Abrahamyan <minas.subs at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Trying to build AOT version of vmkit java, >> > building for that classpath glibj.zip: >> > >> > $ cd vmkit/tools/vmjc/libvmjc >> > $ make ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=1 REQUIRES_FRAME_POINTER=1 >> > >> > has eventually, after 50 minutes, brought: >> > <<< >> > llvm[0]: Compiling glibj.zip to llvm >> > llvm[0]: Optimizing glibj.zip >> > llvm[0]: Compiling glibj.zip.bc to native >> > UNREA...

...39; CC='gcc' CFLAGS='' CMP='' CONVENIENCE_LTDL_FALSE='' CONVENIENCE_LTDL_TRUE='' CP='' CPP='' CPPFLAGS='' CVSBUILD='' CXX='' CXXCPP='' CXXFLAGS='' DATE='' DEBUG_RUNTIME='' DEFS='' DISABLE_ASSERTIONS='' DOT='' DOTTY='' DOXYGEN='' ECHO='echo' ECHO_C='' ECHO_N='-n' ECHO_T='' EGREP='' ENABLE_CBE_PRINTF_A='' ENABLE_DOXYGEN='' ENABLE_EXPENSIVE_CHECKS='' ENABLE_OPTIMIZED='' ENABLE_PIC=''...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 What is the expected footprint of a tool using the LLVM JIT? I have created a simple project that uses the LLVM C++ API to JIT calls to XPCOM method signature... it works well, but the component DLL is very large (Linux x86-74, 5.8MB optimized and stripped). Is this normal? Am I linking to "too much" or not using the correct link flags?