search for: unreduced

On 11/15/2015 01:29 PM, Tim Northover wrote: > On 15 November 2015 at 09:01, Rodney M. Bates via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> The latter is reduced to machine code by llc, the former is not, instead >> coming through as an external function call, which then fails to link. > > Is this for x86? I don't think that has a single instruction to >

I have a smallish compilation that contains calls on intrinsics @llvm.maxnum.f32 and @llvm.fabs.f32: %fminmax = call float @llvm.maxnum.f32(float %fabs5, float %fabs) %fabs = call float @llvm.fabs.f32(float %v.6) The latter is reduced to machine code by llc, the former is not, instead coming through as an external function call, which then fails to link. I can't see any differences

...but I > > will. One salient difference with the code you've provided is that in my > > code, @a is a struct type. However, changing the example to use a minimal > > structure doesn't trigger the assertion failure. > > Is the example something you can share even in unreduced for? As it turns out, the root cause was that I had a GlobalVariable that wasn't being copied to an extern in the new module under some circumstances, but was being used directly. I would have expected the verifier pass to catch this, but it looks like we're probably not using the verifie...

...minimal a test case yet, but I > will. One salient difference with the code you've provided is that in my > code, @a is a struct type. However, changing the example to use a minimal > structure doesn't trigger the assertion failure. Is the example something you can share even in unreduced for? > But I'm still curious: why doesn't the value mapper do type mapping on global > variables? I am not sure. I would probably have to look at a failing example to know what is going on. Cheers, Rafael

...lient difference with the code you've provided is that in my >>>> code, @a is a struct type. However, changing the example to use a minimal >>>> structure doesn't trigger the assertion failure. >>> >>> Is the example something you can share even in unreduced for? >> >> As it turns out, the root cause was that I had a GlobalVariable that wasn't >> being copied to an extern in the new module under some circumstances, but was >> being used directly. I would have expected the verifier pass to catch this, >> but it looks l...

.... One salient difference with the code you've provided is that in my > > > code, @a is a struct type. However, changing the example to use a minimal > > > structure doesn't trigger the assertion failure. > > > > Is the example something you can share even in unreduced for? > > As it turns out, the root cause was that I had a GlobalVariable that wasn't > being copied to an extern in the new module under some circumstances, but was > being used directly. I would have expected the verifier pass to catch this, > but it looks like we're proba...

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Rafael_=C1vila_de_Esp=EDndola?= wrote: > On 11/01/12 07:50 AM, Michael Muller wrote: > > > > Hi all, I was looking at the ValueMapper code this morning and I notice that > > it doesn't do type mapping for GlobalValues. Is this correct? > > > > I ask because I am seeing a case where I'm failing type assertions from > >

...I attempt to install the latest version of R from source on my MacBook Pro, using latest versions of Xcode and gfortran for Lion and configure options: ./configure --with-libintl-prefix=/sw --enable-R-shlib (this last option necessary to further install the Rpy Python package) I got the following unreduced compilation error: gcc -std=gnu99 -dynamiclib -Wl,-headerpad_max_install_names -undefined dynamic_lookup -single_module -multiply_defined suppress -L/sw/lib -L/usr/local/lib -o tools.so text.o init.o Rmd5.o md5.o signals.o -L../../../../lib -lR -dylib_file libRblas.dylib:../../../../lib/libRblas.d...

....0.25). For example, after splitting a data frame accordinng to whatever criterion, it might well happen that not all levels of a factor are present in all new data frames. However, R doesn't seem to care about. When performing some kind of analysis seperately on the new frames, each time the unreduced number of levels is present. That can be very problematic, as a lot of methods tend to crash because no data are found for the "lost" level. Neither explicit setting of "data=data.frame.xyz" nor any straightforward use of "detach()" or "attach()" nor &quot...

...gt; revert has the responsibility to do their best to help the patch author > reproduce the problem or at least understand the bug. > > This can take many forms. They can link directly to an LLVM buildbot, > which should be self-explanatory as far as reproduction goes. It can be > an unreduced crash report. If they're nice, they can use CReduce to make > it smaller. But, a reverter can't just say "Revert rNNN, breaks > $RANDOM_PROJECT on x86_64-linux-gu". If they add, "reduction forthcoming" > and they deliver on that promise, I think we should suppor...

I've committed a fix: r149970. Please try it. I would really appreciate it if you can provide us with a test case (unreduced test case is fine). Evan On 2012 2 4, at 09:46, David Meyer <pdox at google.com> wrote: > Evan & llvmdev, > > I'm seeing a case where ARM Load/Store optimizer is breaking code. I have not had any luck trying to come up with a minimal example; it is breaking in our stage 2...

Evan & llvmdev, I'm seeing a case where ARM Load/Store optimizer is breaking code. I have not had any luck trying to come up with a minimal example; it is breaking in our stage 2 LLVM build. But here's what I'm seeing in the debug output: # Before ARMLoadStoreOptimizer: BB#21: derived from LLVM BB %cond.end Live Ins: %LR %R0 %R1 %R7 %R10 %R11 Predecessors according to

Hi all, Over the past year or so, all of us have broken the buildbots on many occasions. Usually we get notified on IRC, or via an buildbot email notification sent to everyone on the blamelist. If I happen to be on IRC I'll see the notification, but if not, the next best thing is an email that was automatically sent to me (along with everyone else on the blamelist) from the buildbot with

Hello, I encountered some unexpected behavior of unzip when using info-zip's unzip instead of R's internal program. Specifically, unzip("file.zip", list=TRUE, unzip=/usr/bin/unzip) produces incorrect output if the zip archive has filenames with spaces, and results in an error if the zip archive includes an archive comment or file comments. Here is some code to reproduce along

...We do a two stage build, followed by rebuilding our entire system/universe. - pdox On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > I've committed a fix: r149970. Please try it. I would really appreciate it > if you can provide us with a test case (unreduced test case is fine). > > Evan > > On 2012 2 4, at 09:46, David Meyer <pdox at google.com> wrote: > > > Evan & llvmdev, > > > > I'm seeing a case where ARM Load/Store optimizer is breaking code. I > have not had any luck trying to come up with a minim...

...ook at a file inside the stub backend, you know that there isn't extraneous junk that some other target wouldn't have: everything there is essentially an example of something that every target has in common. Just as having a reduced testcase is much easier to debug compared to the original unreduced code it originates from, so too a stub backend could be useful to gain understanding of what is happening in a real backend. If we included a script that duplicates the stub into a new directory and renames things appropriately (and probably also clang-format's it along the way, since name len...

...s that the person doing the revert has the responsibility to do their best to help the patch author reproduce the problem or at least understand the bug. This can take many forms. They can link directly to an LLVM buildbot, which should be self-explanatory as far as reproduction goes. It can be an unreduced crash report. If they're nice, they can use CReduce to make it smaller. But, a reverter can't just say "Revert rNNN, breaks $RANDOM_PROJECT on x86_64-linux-gu". If they add, "reduction forthcoming" and they deliver on that promise, I think we should support that. In oth...

On 25 September 2013 11:50, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info>wrote: > I asked for this several times and the conclusion was "no, what for, > we have plenty of other backends in the tree which can be thought as > examples". IMHO, it will be nice thing to have though... > I think that it would be fine as long as we have two conditions: * Fixes on other

...best to help the patch author > >> reproduce the problem or at least understand the bug. > >> > >> This can take many forms. They can link directly to an LLVM buildbot, > >> which should be self-explanatory as far as reproduction goes. It can be > >> an unreduced crash report. If they're nice, they can use CReduce to make > >> it smaller. But, a reverter can't just say "Revert rNNN, breaks > >> $RANDOM_PROJECT on x86_64-linux-gu". If they add, "reduction > forthcoming" > >> and they deliver on that p...