search for: stringmapentrybase

i don't understand the source code : static StringMapEntryBase *getTombstoneVal() { return (StringMapEntryBase*)-1; } at "include\llvm\adt\stingmaph" at line 116. "(StringMapEntryBase*)-1" is it the cast or something other? why there is a * after class StringMapEntryBase? thank you ~~ -------------- next part -------------- An HT...

I get the error below (and have for a couple weeks now) when trying to build llvm-gcc on Ubuntu Feisty. In the meantime, on Ubuntu Gutsy, everything has been building fine. Both are release builds for x86. John cc1: StringMap.cpp:177: void llvm::StringMapImpl::RemoveKey(llvm::StringMapEntryBase*): Assertion `V == V2 && "Didn't find key?"' failed.

> I am having the same problem. It was "introduced" by revision 54811, > so it looks like a memory corruption problem. Investigating. Interesting. Bootstrapping with gcac works! Some tests with valgrind also work. My next try is to add some debug code to do bounds checking in SmallVector. Cheers, -- Rafael Avila de Espindola Google | Gordon House | Barrow Street | Dublin 4 |

...yX((char*)FirstEl+Size) {} In StringMap.h: class StringMapImpl { *protected:* // Array of NumBuckets pointers to entries, null pointers are holes. // TheTable[NumBuckets] contains a sentinel value for easy iteration. Followed // by an array of the actual hash values as unsigned integers. StringMapEntryBase **TheTable; unsigned NumBuckets; unsigned NumItems; unsigned NumTombstones; unsigned ItemSize; *protected:* explicit StringMapImpl(unsigned itemSize) : TheTable(nullptr), is the second "protected:" a coding style that should be preserved? -------------- next part -------...

...nu/include -I/ptmp/dag/llvm-project.official/llvm/trunk/include -DL_popcountsi2 -c /ptmp/dag/llvm-project.official/llvm-gcc-4.2/trunk/gcc/libgcc2.c -o libgcc/./_popcountsi2.o cc1: /ptmp/dag/llvm-project.official/llvm/trunk/lib/Support/StringMap.cpp:177: void llvm::StringMapImpl::RemoveKey(llvm::StringMapEntryBase*): Assertion `V == V2 && "Didn't find key?"' failed. /ptmp/dag/llvm-project.official/llvm-gcc-4.2/trunk/gcc/libgcc2.c:809: internal compiler error: Aborted Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See <URL:http://developer.apple.com/bu...

...dag/llvm-project.official/llvm/trunk/include -DL_popcountsi2 > -c /ptmp/dag/llvm-project.official/llvm-gcc-4.2/trunk/gcc/libgcc2.c -o > libgcc/./_popcountsi2.o > cc1: /ptmp/dag/llvm-project.official/llvm/trunk/lib/Support/StringMap.cpp:177: > void llvm::StringMapImpl::RemoveKey(llvm::StringMapEntryBase*): Assertion `V > == V2 && "Didn't find key?"' failed. > /ptmp/dag/llvm-project.official/llvm-gcc-4.2/trunk/gcc/libgcc2.c:809: internal > compiler error: Aborted Unless this is in something like an inline asm, an internal compiler error is always a gcc bug. Yo...

...ot currently select the LLVM debug build to link into llvm-gcc, so you have to set this manually), I do not see the error, only the Release build. valgrind seems clean on the Release build. Andrew > > John > > > cc1: StringMap.cpp:177: void > llvm::StringMapImpl::RemoveKey(llvm::StringMapEntryBase*): Assertion `V == > V2 && "Didn't find key?"' failed. > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >

...nted to build the llvm-gcc, i got the problem as following. ========================================================================================================================== cc1: /home/cllou/LLVM/llvm-2.4-dir/llvm-2.4/lib/Support/StringMap.cpp:177: void llvm::StringMapImpl::RemoveKey(llvm::StringMapEntryBase*): Assertion `V == V2 && "Didn't find key?"' failed. ../../llvm-gcc4.2-2.4.source/gcc/libgcc2.c:809: internal compiler error: Aborted Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See <URL:http://developer.apple.com/bugreporter<http://deve...

Hi, > Today I've been trying to debug a weird bug that makes JIT crash with > certain code and when using the inliner. This may sound weird, but if I > disable the inliner, it doesn't crash. > I include an example gdb dump below. Does something looks wrong? Do you > think it's a bug in JIT or it's just some other piece of code that is > writing on the JIT

This series of patches address several issues causing memory usage to grow indefinetely on a long lived process. These are not convenional leaks -- memory would have been freed when the LLVM context or/and JIT engine is destroyed -- but for as long as they aren't the memory is usage effectively ubounded. The issues were found using valgrind with '--show-reachable=yes' option: 1.

...shes when I run the inliner. Running valgrind on the program without the inliner doesn't show any error. If I run the program with the inliner (just uncoment 1 line), valgrind gives a few errors. Example of one of the errors: ==11384== Invalid read of size 4 ==11384== at 0x54B6F04: llvm::StringMapEntryBase::getKeyLength() const (StringMap.h:47) ==11384== by 0x59C6CFD: llvm::Value::getNameStr() const (Value.cpp:162) ==11384== by 0x544FE54: llvm::Value::getName() const (Value.h:110) ==11384== by 0x55E7DA8: (anonymous namespace)::JITResolver::JITCompilerFn(void*) (JITEmitter.cpp:269) ==11384=...

Hi, Today I've been trying to debug a weird bug that makes JIT crash with certain code and when using the inliner. This may sound weird, but if I disable the inliner, it doesn't crash. I include an example gdb dump below. Does something looks wrong? Do you think it's a bug in JIT or it's just some other piece of code that is writing on the JIT memory?.. I don't really know