search for: p_mi

Thanks for the suggestion, Duncan. I recently figured out that it had to do with how I was removing the pseudo instruction in my overridden expandPostRAPseudo() implementation. // member function's signature bool TheInstrInfo::expandPostRAPseudo(MachineBasicBlock::iterator p_mi) // works bb.erase(p_mi); // produces the assertion / memory leak. p_mi->removeFromParent(); I should have looked more closely at the targets that implemented expandPostRAPseudo() and saw how they got rid of the pseudo instruction. In particular, the successful line was lifted from bool Mips1...

...or the suggestion, Duncan. > > I recently figured out that it had to do with how I was removing the > pseudo instruction in my overridden expandPostRAPseudo() implementation. > > // member function's signature > bool TheInstrInfo::expandPostRAPseudo(MachineBasicBlock::iterator p_mi) > > // works > bb.erase(p_mi); > > // produces the assertion / memory leak. > p_mi->removeFromParent(); > > I should have looked more closely at the targets that implemented > expandPostRAPseudo() and saw how they got rid of the pseudo instruction. In > particular,...

Hi David, > Previously, I had been testing with only one routine per test .ll file, but I > thought I'd reached a point where I could test multiple operations at once and > understand the output. The odd part about this is that the likelihood of seeing > the above assertion scales with the number of functions in the .ll file. If I > have one or two functions, I never see it.

Hello, I've made some fair progress on a target for 6502 family CPUs recently, but I've run into an error I'm not sure how to address. I've ruminated over it for about a week now, trying various things and not having any success. It seems to scale with the number of routines in my .ll file, which I am trying to run through llc. I get the following stack dump from an assertion: