search for: unemit

...tbr is only defined within a function so there's no ordering problem if you're looking at the indirectbr. > > The code generator doesn't want dead blocks coming into it for various reasons, so removing them is important. I guess we'll have to do something like buffer up the unemitted labels and emit them at the end of the file (in a meaningless location). This should provide correct code, but is somewhat gross. > > Bob/Dan, do you guys have any other ideas on how to handle this? Is the problem when you've got a blockaddress that references a dead label in a diff...

...e the code generator (UnreachableBlockElim & CodeGenPrepare) zap dead blocks, so test_label was being deleted. > > The code generator doesn't want dead blocks coming into it for various reasons, so removing them is important. I guess we'll have to do something like buffer up the unemitted labels and emit them at the end of the file (in a meaningless location). This should provide correct code, but is somewhat gross. > > Bob/Dan, do you guys have any other ideas on how to handle this? > > -Chris >

...run before the code generator (UnreachableBlockElim & CodeGenPrepare) zap dead blocks, so test_label was being deleted. The code generator doesn't want dead blocks coming into it for various reasons, so removing them is important. I guess we'll have to do something like buffer up the unemitted labels and emit them at the end of the file (in a meaningless location). This should provide correct code, but is somewhat gross. Bob/Dan, do you guys have any other ideas on how to handle this? -Chris

...the time test_func is codegen'd, the block is deleted, so the definition isn't emitted. I'll fix this. >> The code generator doesn't want dead blocks coming into it for various reasons, so removing them is important. I guess we'll have to do something like buffer up the unemitted labels and emit them at the end of the file (in a meaningless location). This should provide correct code, but is somewhat gross. >> >> Bob/Dan, do you guys have any other ideas on how to handle this? > > Is the problem when you've got a blockaddress that references a de...

Hi, i ran into a problem when using blockaddress() with a label in another function. It seems to me that LLVM tries to remove the label used in blockaddress because it seems like it is not used, but in fact it may be used somewhere with a indirectbr. I attached a small test-case that produces this error. (The original problem is much more complicated, so i hope the reduced example, which has no

...de generator (UnreachableBlockElim & CodeGenPrepare) zap dead blocks, so test_label was being deleted. >> >> The code generator doesn't want dead blocks coming into it for various reasons, so removing them is important. I guess we'll have to do something like buffer up the unemitted labels and emit them at the end of the file (in a meaningless location). This should provide correct code, but is somewhat gross. >> >> Bob/Dan, do you guys have any other ideas on how to handle this? >> >> -Chris >>

...or (UnreachableBlockElim & CodeGenPrepare) zap dead blocks, so test_label was being deleted. > >> > >> The code generator doesn't want dead blocks coming into it for various reasons, so removing them is important. I guess we'll have to do something like buffer up the unemitted labels and emit them at the end of the file (in a meaningless location). This should provide correct code, but is somewhat gross. > >> > >> Bob/Dan, do you guys have any other ideas on how to handle this? > >> > >> -Chris