Displaying 11 results from an estimated 11 matches for "enable_expensive_check".
Did you mean:
enable_expensive_checks
2009 May 15
3
[LLVMdev] "Processed value not in any map!" failures
When I build LLVM with ENABLE_EXPENSIVE_CHECKS=1, make check fails:
Running /home/foad/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/ARM/dg.exp ...
FAIL: /home/foad/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/ARM/2007-05-14-InlineAsmCstCrash.ll
Failed with signal(SIGABRT) at line 1
while running: llvm-as <
/home/foad/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/t...
2009 May 15
0
[LLVMdev] "Processed value not in any map!" failures
Hi Jay,
> When I build LLVM with ENABLE_EXPENSIVE_CHECKS=1, make check fails:
>
> Running /home/foad/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/ARM/dg.exp ...
> FAIL: /home/foad/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/test/CodeGen/ARM/2007-05-14-InlineAsmCstCrash.ll
> Failed with signal(SIGABRT) at line 1
> while running: llvm-as <
> /home/foad/...
2009 May 15
3
[LLVMdev] Removing std::vector from APIs (was Re: Mutating the elements of a ConstantArray)
...bit of a flaw in the plan. I suppose the solution is
to switch to SmallVector whenever this might be a problem.
I'm a bit concerned that any new &empty[0] problems that are
introduced will go unnoticed. With GNU libstdc++ they aren't diagnosed
unless you build with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG (or ENABLE_EXPENSIVE_CHECKS=1).
For now I'm testing with ENABLE_EXPENSIVE_CHECKS=1, and it is indeed
catching lots of errors!
> (though it is safe for smallvector).
DR 464 proposes a new data() method. I'd suggest implementing that in
SmallVector, instead of relying on the relaxed checking in
operator[]().
htt...
2009 May 14
0
[LLVMdev] Removing std::vector from APIs (was Re: Mutating the elements of a ConstantArray)
On May 14, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Jay Foad wrote:
> 2009/4/1 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>:
>> As far API design goes, we're in a mixed state. I'd strongly prefer
>> to get rid of std::vector from the various interfaces, f.e.
>> creating a
>> constant array currently requires passing in an std::vector. For
>> these sorts of interfaces, we
2017 Jul 17
2
An update on the DominatorTree and incremental dominators
...) on a DomTreeNode.
-
We have a new set of verifiers that are able to prove or disprove
correctness of a DomTree -- you can explicitly do it by calling
DT.verify(). The check has a disadvantage of being quite slow (O(n^3)), so
the legacy DT.verifyDominatorTree() uses it only when
ENABLE_EXPENSIVE_CHECK is enabled, or when the -verify-dom-info command
line option is set to 1. Some of the transforms assume that calling
DT.verifyDomTree() is fast, so we cannot turn it on by default.
-
Dominators and Postdominators are now different types, i.e. IsPostDom is
a template argument and not...
2009 May 14
2
[LLVMdev] Removing std::vector from APIs (was Re: Mutating the elements of a ConstantArray)
2009/4/1 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>:
> As far API design goes, we're in a mixed state. I'd strongly prefer
> to get rid of std::vector from the various interfaces, f.e. creating a
> constant array currently requires passing in an std::vector. For
> these sorts of interfaces, we should migrate to passing in a "Constant
> *const* / unsigned" pair.
2009 May 15
0
[LLVMdev] Removing std::vector from APIs (was Re: Mutating the elements of a ConstantArray)
...afe to use &V[0]
> > when V is an empty std::vector
>
> Oh dear. That's a bit of a flaw in the plan. I suppose the solution is
> to switch to SmallVector whenever this might be a problem.
Or use iterators. That's why they're there.
> For now I'm testing with ENABLE_EXPENSIVE_CHECKS=1, and it is indeed
> catching lots of errors!
Mm hmm. :)
-Dave
2009 Jun 17
1
[LLVMdev] Configure problem of llvm2.5 in Mac OS X 10.4.11
...=''
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=''
ENABLE_THREADS=''
ENABLE_VISIBILITY_INLINES_HIDDEN=''
ENDIAN=''
EXEEXT=''
EXPENSIVE_CHECKS=''
EXTRA_OPTIONS=''
F77=''
FFLAGS=''
FIND=''
FLEX=''
GAS=''...
2009 Sep 11
2
[LLVMdev] compiling clang with rtti
...with rtti enabled? Eventually I got it
by editing every single Makefile in the "lib" sub-directories and
commenting out the appropriate line "CXXFLAGS = -fno-rtti".
However this can't be a proper solution. As stated earlier if
REQUIRES_RTTI would be evaluated similiar to ENABLE_EXPENSIVE_CHECKS
regarding rtti then it would be easy to enable rtti for clang.
OTOH I'm not a makefile expert (to be honest I'm very far away from it).
Thus maybe I'm just overlooking the right way to enable rtti for the
clang libs.
<--END-->
Thanks in advance for any help...
Best regards
O...
2010 Nov 29
3
[LLVMdev] Does someone has experience with Canadian cross build of LLVM compiler?
...--host=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu; \
cd .. ; \
fi; \
(unset SDKROOT; \
make -C BuildTools \
BUILD_DIRS_ONLY=1 \
UNIVERSAL= \
ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 \
ENABLE_PROFILING= \
ENABLE_COVERAGE= \
DISABLE_ASSERTIONS=1 \
ENABLE_EXPENSIVE_CHECKS= \
CFLAGS= \
CXXFLAGS= \
) || exit 1;
checking build system type... x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
checking host system type... x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
checking target system type... x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
checking type of operating system we're going to host on... Linux
checking type of operati...
2009 Jun 18
0
[LLVMdev] Configure problem of llvm2.5 in Mac OS X 10.4.11
...39;'
> 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=''
> ENABLE_THREADS=''
> ENABLE_VISIBILITY_INLINES_HIDDEN=''
> ENDIAN=''
> EXEEXT=''
> EXPENSIVE_CHECKS=''
> EXTRA_OPTIONS=''
> F77=''
> FFLAGS='&...