search for: newti

...remove a nonexistant successor!"); // If our old successor block contains any PHI nodes, remove the entry in the // PHI nodes that comes from this branch... // BasicBlock *BB = TI->getParent(); TI->getSuccessor(SuccNum)->removePredecessor(BB); TerminatorInst *NewTI = 0; switch (TI->getOpcode()) { case Instruction::Br: // If this is a conditional branch... convert to unconditional branch. if (TI->getNumSuccessors() == 2) { cast<BranchInst>(TI)->setUnconditionalDest(TI->getSuccessor(1-SuccNum)); } else {...

All, I'm seeing duplication of DICompileUnits in a pass that worked in 3.8. I assume I'm doing something wrong. Would someone be willing to point me in the right direction? The below minimized pass reproduces my issue in 4.0 with the following error: DICompileUnit not listed in llvm.dbg.cu !1707 = distinct !DICompileUnit(language: DW_LANG_C_plus_plus, file: !1, producer: "clang

Thank you. What I need to do to address this? Open an issue on bugs.llvm.org? I'm not sure what the fix needs to be in the cloner. On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > There have in the past been bugs in the cloner involving duplicate > DICompileUnits (see e.g. https://reviews.llvm.org/D29240), this one may > need a similar fix.

Hi, I tried creating intrinsics which are to be placeholders for a set of instructions which should not be executed by the backend. I get the following verifier error. The "indvar.next4" instruction being mentioned in the step wise debug is not present in the LLVM IR (i.e IR before application of my transformation Pass). As seen below the operands of this instructions causing

Hi Quentin, I’ve started running an ABI test suite with global isel on AArch64, and while it hasn’t found any ABI issues it has hit an assertion in clang when using the __fp16 type. Here’s a reproducer: __fp16 pass_f16(__fp16 p) { return p; } $ /work/llvm/build/bin/clang --target=aarch64-arm-none-eabi -march=armv8-a -c test.c -O0 -mllvm -global-isel -mllvm -global-isel-abort=0

To give an update here, we actually are not missing a mapping. The code complains because we are copying around a fp16 into a gpr32 and that shouldn’t be done with a copy (default mapping). I extended the repairing code to issue G_ANYEXT in those cases instead of asserting. However, now, I have to teach instruction select about those ANYEXT otherwise we’ll fallback in that case. But that’s a

Hi Oliver, Thanks for trying this. Could you file a different PR for each of the problem you found and reference the umbrella PR: http://llvm.org/PR35347? <http://llvm.org/PR35347?> Thanks, -Quentin > On Nov 17, 2017, at 8:17 AM, Oliver Stannard <oliver.stannard at arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Quentin, > > One more reproducer, this time with small (<64bit) values

Thanks all. Amara, could you take a look? > On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:06 AM, Oliver Stannard <oliver.stannard at arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Quentin, > > I’ve raised: > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35359 <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35359> > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35360 <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35360> >

Hi Quentin, My only remaining concern is around ABI compatibility. The following commit seems to indicate that in the previous round of evaluation, we didn’t find an existing ABI compatibility issue: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=311388. I haven’t looked into the details of this issue - so maybe I’m worried over nothing? I’m wondering if since then on your side