search for: theinstrinfo

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 parti...

...<mathonnapkins at gmail.com>wrote: > > 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 g...

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: