search for: nullity

...hould be present. Otherwise, it should *not* be present. In the crash case, `spFlags = DISPFlagOptimized`. So, I guess, `unit` field should *not* be present, though I do not know the difference between ` DISPFlagDefinition` and ` DISPFlagOptimized`. if that is expected, then we may need to check `nullity` of `DISubprogram::getUnit()` before accessing it at https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/CodeGen/LexicalScopes.cpp#L53 Thanks, Mahesha On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 11:26 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > In theory the LLVM IR verifier (llvm/lib/IR/Verif...

...herwise, it should *not* be present. In the crash case, `spFlags = > DISPFlagOptimized`. So, I guess, `unit` field should *not* be present, > though I do not know the difference between ` DISPFlagDefinition` and ` > DISPFlagOptimized`. if that is expected, then we may need to check > `nullity` of `DISubprogram::getUnit()` before accessing it at > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/CodeGen/LexicalScopes.cpp#L53 > > > > Thanks, > > Mahesha > > > > On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 11:26 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote...

...b97 __libc_start_main /build/glibc-OTsEL5/glibc-2.27/csu/../csu/libc-start.c:344:0 #12 0x000055601668f2ea _start (/opt/rocm/llvm/bin/llc+0x4e82ea) ----------- QUESTION IS: Is this expected behavior? OR should LLC throw an error and abort compilation? OR at the crash point, we are suppose to test `nullity` of `DISubprogram::getUnit()` before accessing it? -- Thanks, Mahesha

...herwise, it should *not* be present. In the crash case, `spFlags = > DISPFlagOptimized`. So, I guess, `unit` field should *not* be present, > though I do not know the difference between ` DISPFlagDefinition` and ` > DISPFlagOptimized`. if that is expected, then we may need to check > `nullity` of `DISubprogram::getUnit()` before accessing it at > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/CodeGen/LexicalScopes.cpp#L53 > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Mahesha > >> > > >> > On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 11:26 AM David Bla...

Nothing really needs to be done on Unix, because to my knowledge Unix doesn't differentiate between text and binary on stdin/stdout. ~Michael -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Reid Spencer Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:25 AM To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] Binary output to cout on

>>> In this particular case, since the def of %x in the caller is also an argument, we could propagate it to the def directly, e.g. define i1 @foo(i32* nonnull %x) { %y.i = load i32, i32* %x ; inlined, still known to be nonnull >>> For propagation of non-nullity to the argument, don't you need value propagation or backward all dataflow analysis? IE. define i1 @foo(i32* %x) if (%x != NULL) { %y.i = load i32, i32* %x ; inlined } // do something else with %x where it can still be null It wouldn't be correct to make foo's argument non-null if...

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > > On 12/16/2016 11:37 AM, Michael Kuperstein wrote: > > Calling an instruction a "source" is basically another way to say "we > can't dataflow through this". > > What I'm trying to say is that this is not really a property of the > instruction