search for: noasserts

...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 >>&gt...

Hello, As an experiment, I'm simply trying to add a trivial intrinsic to LLVM, but I'm having trouble, which suggests that I'm overlooking the obvious ;) Platform is GCC-4.2.4/LLVM from SVN/x86. First, I've read the page here about 10 times, so I'll speculate that my reading comprehension is lacking: http://www.llvm.org/docs/ExtendingLLVM.html Code I've added to the

...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* Reas...

...> > > 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

...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...

Hi, Thank You for the advice and we were able to solve that problem by the following modifications to the Instrinsics.td file. But I now have an "Invalid Intrinsic name" error This error occurs presumably because the created intrinsic is named: llvm.migrate_begin.i32 Intrinsics.gen checks for a string length of 18 (i.e. the length without the .i32). Kindly help me through it.

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 >>

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... so...

...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 >> >>>&gt...

...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 >...

I haven't scheduled time to investigate this yet. My guess is that GoogleTest config is getting confused on Microsoft vs POSIX mkdir when going through autoconf: llvm[3]: Compiling gtest-filepath.cc for Release-Asserts build g:\mingw32\bin\../lib/gcc/mingw32/4.2.1-dw2/../../../../include/io.h: In member function 'bool testing::internal::FilePath::CreateFolder() const':

...;>>>>>> 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 -disabl...

Thank you for your reply--I've now done that. Unfortunately, there's a new error now: ------------ Cannot yet select: intrinsic %llvm.test_intrinsic test.c:25: internal compiler error: Aborted Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See <URL:http://developer.apple.com/bugreporter> for instructions. ------------ I've switched to using LLVM-2.5

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