search for: iplists

Hi All, I have just started using LLVM . i am facing a issue while using ilist container. Here is a struct with ilist container as its one element. typedef ilist<Instruction *> InstListType; struct list_node { int Impact; InstListType InstList; }; list_node

Hey everyone, So I have an LLVM pass that appears to run completely and work fine, and then it aborts at the very end. When exiting the final runOnFunction call, I get the following error / stack dump. I cannot figure out why this is happening for the life of me - does anyone have any ideas? I'm not trying to do any crazy deallocation or anything, it just seems like a normal pass to me.

Hi Griffin, did your pass create a data structure that holds values somehow, and forgot to delete it? Also, try running under valgrind in case this is due to a memory error of some kind. Ciao, Duncan. > So I have an LLVM pass that appears to run completely and work fine, and > then it aborts at the very end. When exiting the final runOnFunction call, > I get the following error /

I've been digging into some undefined behaviour stemming from how ilist is typically configured. r247937, r247944, and r247978 caused a UBSan failure to start firing on our Green Dragon bots, and after an IRC conversation between David and Nick and Mehdi, we added a blacklist: -- $echo "src:$WORKSPACE/llvm/include/llvm/CodeGen/MachineFunction.h" >> sanitize.blacklist --

I think the implicit iterator conversions are much less important now that we have range based for loops, but I still like having them. On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 2015-Oct-07, at 17:57, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> > wrote: > > > > I've been

2011/2/28 John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>: > On 2/28/11 6:31 AM, Gabriel Rodríguez wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am trying to extend a FunctionType to include new parameters. In > particular, I want to > ensure that the main function has been declared with both argsc and argsv. > However > there seems to be no easy way to accomplish this: >

Hello all, I really, really, really need your help. This is my third email now, please don't ignore me! I understand this must be a trivial thing, but I've ground to a halt, and REALLY need some guidance. Please see below for the context of my problem. I'm not trying to be a waste of time, but I'm desperate here. I have a getAnalysisUsage method which does the following

Hi llvm-devel, I have migrated my codebase from llvm-3.6 to llvm 3.8.1-stable. Although I was able to resolve most of the problems, I am facing issues resolving the following: To insert an instruction immediately after the first instruction within a basic block, I first get all instructions in my basic block in an instruction container list. Once that is done, I insert my new instruction in the

Hi Has anybody tell me how to create some new type qualifies in LVM? A type qualify, like "const" in C, is useful for program analysis. I hope that I can set/get the type qualify of any value in a program analysed. Or, if I could add a property to the value class and set/get the property, it is same to add some new type qualifies. So, I simply insert a "int" private

Using Valgrind hasn't shown me anything terribly unusual. And I'm confused because its not even trying to delete a real instruction; deleting a void type with no name? That doesn't make any sense... Any other hints? I've seen a few posts in the past about this relating to some internal LLVM bugs... -Griffin On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:26:41 +0100, Duncan Sands <baldrick at

Yes, it is a pass. Here is a very general overview of the file structure as far as the AA is concerned. LLVM is not my strong-suit, I do hardware simulators, not compilers. using namespace llvm; char RelRecovery::ID = 0; static RegisterPass<RelRecovery> X("relRecovery", "Reliability transformation for lightweight recovery"); void

Griffin Wright wrote: > > Hello all, > > I really, really, really need your help. This is my third email now, > please don't ignore me! I understand this must be a trivial thing, but > I've ground to a halt, and REALLY need some guidance. Please see below for > the context of my problem. I'm not trying to be a waste of time, but I'm > desperate here.

Hello all, I am working with someone else's LLVM code, which is about 8 months old. Part of this pass involves AliasAnalysis, and I'm getting the above assertion when the pass completes. The dump is as follows: -------------------------------- Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. 0xf7fdf430 in __kernel_vsyscall () (gdb) bt #0 0xf7fdf430 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xf602e921 in

"Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: >> On 2015-Oct-20, at 11:23, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >> >> I think the implicit iterator conversions are much less important >> now that we have range based for loops, but I still like having >> them. > > IMO, if a developer has an ilist iterator

Hello, I've been stuck with a problem for about a month, and it has stumped everyone in my lab. I have a function pass that runs, and when it finishes and opt goes to return, I get: While deleting: void % An asserting value handle still pointed to this value! UNREACHABLE executed at /x/grwright/llvm/llvm-2.9/lib/VMCore/Value.cpp:569! On a simple test case, the error becomes 'i32 %'

Hi, First, sorry in advance for pasting code like this :) I'm doing a simple optimization pass for a cs326 class project. The pass in question is LICM, and I'm getting an assertion when I try to hoist an instruction. My hoist function is below. I dont think I need that copying in there, that was just something people on the newsgroup suggested. I get the same assertion

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 5:10 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > On 2/28/11 10:04 AM, Frits van Bommel wrote: >> I don't think a full clone is necessary, since he wants to replace the >> function. He only needs to create the new function and splice in the >> body of the old one. > > That is exactly what MakeFunctionClone() does.  It creates a

Xia, LLVM doesn't really use type qualifiers the way you're thinking about it. In LLVM parlance, types are neither const nor non-const, they just define the fundamental nature of a value. However, LLVM fully supports Constant Values (see include/llvm/Constant.h) and constant global variables (see include/llvm/GlobalVariable.h). You might want to read up on the LLVM IR a bit here:

I recently upgraded from llvm 3.7.1 to a pre release of llvm (3.8.0rc2) in order to test some issues regarding bug 24233. After upgrading I starting to see heap corruption messages in vs 2015 sp1 when my program exits. "HEAP[ConsoleEngine.exe]: Invalid address specified to RtlValidateHeap( 0000000000290000, 0000000000318698 )" Initially I only got it in Release build. Debug build seems

On 2/28/11 10:04 AM, Frits van Bommel wrote: > 2011/2/28 John Criswell<criswell at illinois.edu>: >> On 2/28/11 6:31 AM, Gabriel Rodríguez wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am trying to extend a FunctionType to include new parameters. In >> particular, I want to >> ensure that the main function has been declared with both argsc and argsv. >>