search for: noassert

...ng :) Glad I found consensus, but I want to double-check that this makes sense to add to the driver. I didn't quite think through the implications myself. Since the driver doesn't know if there's any bitcode, or if LTO is going to be invoked, it seems like I'll have to change the noasserts driver to *always* pass the option to the linker just in case we are doing LTO. Is this reasonable? Also, I realized that passing `-mllvm -disable-llvm-verifier` to ld64 is redundant... so I'm thinking `-mllvm -disable-verify`. Make sense?

...quite think through the >>>>>>> implications myself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since the driver doesn't know if there's any bitcode, or if LTO is >>>>>>> going to be invoked, it seems like I'll have to change the noasserts >>>>>>> driver to *always* pass the option to the linker just in case we are >>>>>>> doing LTO. Is this reasonable? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, I realized that passing `-mllvm -disable-llvm-verifier` to ld64 >>&g...

...{ return llvm_test_intrinsic (blah); } int main() { int x = 3; bar (x); return 0; } ----------------- After invoking: llvm-gcc -g test.c -o test.native ----------------- The compiler returns: cc1: Function.cpp:323: unsigned int llvm::Function::getIntrinsicID(bool) const: Assertion `noAssert && "Invalid LLVM intrinsic name"' failed. test.c:24: internal compiler error: Aborted Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See <URL:http://developer.apple.com/bugreporter> for instructions. ----------------- So, it's clear I'...

...nsus, but I want to double-check that this makes > sense to add to the driver. I didn't quite think through the > implications myself. > > Since the driver doesn't know if there's any bitcode, or if LTO is > going to be invoked, it seems like I'll have to change the noasserts > driver to *always* pass the option to the linker just in case we are > doing LTO. Is this reasonable? > > Also, I realized that passing `-mllvm -disable-llvm-verifier` to ld64 > is redundant... so I'm thinking `-mllvm -disable-verify`. Make > sense? > > *sigh* Rea...

...> > > sense to add to the driver. I didn't quite think through the > > > implications myself. > > > > > > Since the driver doesn't know if there's any bitcode, or if LTO is > > > going to be invoked, it seems like I'll have to change the noasserts > > > driver to *always* pass the option to the linker just in case we are > > > doing LTO. Is this reasonable? > > > > > > Also, I realized that passing `-mllvm -disable-llvm-verifier` to ld64 > > > is redundant... so I'm thinking `-mllvm -disable...

Hi, > After invoking: > llvm-gcc -g test.c -o test.native > ----------------- > The compiler returns: > cc1: Function.cpp:323: unsigned int llvm::Function::getIntrinsicID(bool) > const: Assertion `noAssert && "Invalid LLVM intrinsic name"' failed. > test.c:24: internal compiler error: Aborted did you rebuild llvm-gcc after building llvm with your new intrinsic defined? Ciao, Duncan.

...add to the driver. I didn't quite think through the >>>>> implications myself. >>>>> >>>>> Since the driver doesn't know if there's any bitcode, or if LTO is >>>>> going to be invoked, it seems like I'll have to change the noasserts >>>>> driver to *always* pass the option to the linker just in case we are >>>>> doing LTO. Is this reasonable? >>>>> >>>>> Also, I realized that passing `-mllvm -disable-llvm-verifier` to ld64 >>>>> is redundant... so I...

...*f = Intrinsic::getDeclaration(M,Intrinsic::migrate_begin,Tys,i); /* migrate_begin intrinsic creation */ CallInst* CI = new CallInst(f,"migrate_begin"); //Error: NAME:llvm.migrate_begin.i32 opt: Function.cpp:293: unsigned int llvm::Function::getIntrinsicID(bool) const: Assertion `noAssert && "Invalid LLVM intrinsic name"' failed. P.S: > --- Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > On Feb 19, 2008, at 1:11 AM, aditya vishnubhotla > > wrote: > > Hi, > > I tried creating variable argument intrinsics > > which >...

Hi Duncan. Probably it depends on exact gcc version and possibly assert/noassert build option. I've got this problem with gcc 4.5.2 on 64-bit Suse (I don't remember whether assertions were enabled). On 17 September 2012 21:12, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Sergey, > > >> This is a known gcc bug >> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla...

Hi Sergey, > This is a known gcc bug > (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53670). GCC 4.5 can't > compile clang 3.1 are you sure? I built the LLVM/clang-3.1 release binaries for ubuntu 64 bits using gcc-4.5. Ciao, Duncan. > > On 13 September 2012 06:53, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I think

...to the driver. I didn't quite think through the > >>>> implications myself. > >>>> > >>>> Since the driver doesn't know if there's any bitcode, or if LTO is > >>>> going to be invoked, it seems like I'll have to change the noasserts > >>>> driver to *always* pass the option to the linker just in case we are > >>>> doing LTO. Is this reasonable? > >>>> > >>>> Also, I realized that passing `-mllvm -disable-llvm-verifier` to ld64 > >>>> is redundant... s...

...I didn't quite think through the >> >>>> implications myself. >> >>>> >> >>>> Since the driver doesn't know if there's any bitcode, or if LTO is >> >>>> going to be invoked, it seems like I'll have to change the noasserts >> >>>> driver to *always* pass the option to the linker just in case we are >> >>>> doing LTO. Is this reasonable? >> >>>> >> >>>> Also, I realized that passing `-mllvm -disable-llvm-verifier` to ld64 >> >>>&g...

...hink through the > >> >>>> implications myself. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Since the driver doesn't know if there's any bitcode, or if LTO is > >> >>>> going to be invoked, it seems like I'll have to change the noasserts > >> >>>> driver to *always* pass the option to the linker just in case we are > >> >>>> doing LTO. Is this reasonable? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Also, I realized that passing `-mllvm -disable-llvm-verifier` to ld64 &gt...

...const': g:\mingw32\bin\../lib/gcc/mingw32/4.2.1-dw2/../../../../include/io.h:176: error: too many arguments to function 'int mkdir(const char*)' g:/Testing/llvm-2.5/utils/unittest/googletest/gtest-filepath.cc:277: error: at this point in file make[3]: *** [/Testing/llvm-2.5.optimized-noassert/utils/unittest/googletest/Release-Asserts/gtest-filepath.o] Error 1 This error shows on all four configure lines I use. Kenneth

...;>>>>>> implications myself. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Since the driver doesn't know if there's any bitcode, or if LTO is > >>>>>>>> going to be invoked, it seems like I'll have to change the noasserts > >>>>>>>> driver to *always* pass the option to the linker just in case we are > >>>>>>>> doing LTO. Is this reasonable? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Also, I realized that passing `-mllvm -disab...

...Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] How to add a trivial LLVM intrinsic Hi, > After invoking: > llvm-gcc -g test.c -o test.native > ----------------- > The compiler returns: > cc1: Function.cpp:323: unsigned int llvm::Function::getIntrinsicID(bool) > const: Assertion `noAssert && "Invalid LLVM intrinsic name"' failed. > test.c:24: internal compiler error: Aborted did you rebuild llvm-gcc after building llvm with your new intrinsic defined? Ciao, Duncan. _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list LLVMdev at cs....

On Feb 19, 2008, at 1:11 AM, aditya vishnubhotla wrote: > Hi, > I tried creating variable argument intrinsics which > are to be placeholders for some instructions which > should not be executed by the backend. > > Kindly help me with the errors in my "migrate_begin" > intrinsic creation > > //Additions made to Intrinsics.td file: > > def

Hi, I tried creating variable argument intrinsics which are to be placeholders for some instructions which should not be executed by the backend. Kindly help me with the errors in my "migrate_begin" intrinsic creation //Additions made to Intrinsics.td file: def llvm_migrate_begin : LLVMType<iAny>; def int_migrate_begin :

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 2015-Aug-31, at 11:41, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:40 AM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > > On