similar to: [docs] HowToSubmitABug update?

Hi Jan, From what I understand, except https://llvm.org/docs/HowToSubmitABug.html#incorrect-code-generation , the rest of https://llvm.org/docs/HowToSubmitABug.html seems fine. C backend is removed from the code base, and I don't know what is the proper way to debug incorrect code generation. Since you mentioned clang crash, I think you can tell the clang user start with

Hi, when reporting http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5104 I spent quite a while trying to figure out what passes are used by "-O1" so that I could give this list to bugpoint. It turns out -debug-pass=Arguments is mentioned in docs/HowToSubmitABug.html but under a chapter titled "Compile-time optimization bugs" which I naively ignored since my bug was not a compile-time

The LLVMCodeView library is definitely independent of the rest of the design questions. As far as testing goes, what would be the conventional LLVM way of testing a library for file format manipulation? A test tool that converts some simple text form into a .obj containing CodeView sections, and comparing with a baseline .obj? Or would the test convert back from the .obj to some kind of text as

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info>wrote: > > I am not sure what's the right approach for fixing this. Should > .secrel32 > > be used on all platforms, or just for Windows PE-COFF? Can somebody > > familiar with intricacies of DWARF format on different platforms please > > comment of this? > section-relative

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Piotr Padlewski <prazek at google.com> wrote: > HI, > Yep, our proposal doesn't cover it, because this load ; icmp ; assume; > will land global initilizer function, and main will not see it. > At least if foo would be called multiple times, then we would only have > one load from vtable, but unfortunatelly we will not be able to inline,

My concern wasn't a phylosophical one but a pragmatic one. Learning about poor choices when lowering memset is probably quite useful. Having a flag that just turns off idiom recognition for it may just work around the problem. But the problem may still exist. In any case, I'm not fundamentally against such a flag but it just seems like something that could 1. Hide a problem 2. Get a bit

Chris, I'm a little confused. I am experiencing a crash when compiling the llvm-gcc frontend. According to the bugpoint documentation, bugpoint is used to debug "optimizer crashes, miscompilations by optimizers, or bad native code generation," which seems like it implies that the frontend compiles. Also, the http://llvm.org/docs/HowToSubmitABug.html documentation seems to

Has there been much thought of attempting to automate this process? I could imagine a fairly standard script that scrubbed a history for interesting tidbits. Of course a standard methodology for labeling types of commits would help this in the future. A very simple script could at least do unique word counts and throw out words that match a dictionary (like parts of speech, contributer names,

I'm a little late to the party, but one observation that I haven't seen mentioned is that simply removing #includes and testing that the program compiles is not guaranteed to be a correct transformation. Imagine, for example, that a header file provides an overload of a function that is a better match than one found elsewhere. It will compile either way, but without the #include, you

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 03:50:09PM -0500, Patrick Meredith wrote: > MetaSplit is an anlysis I just finished writing. It doesn't alter > anything, all it does is build a set of "program instructions". For > some reason even though if I run it with any other combination of > passes I've found, anytime I run it with mem2reg I get a seg fault in > dyn_cast!

Definitely having someone who knows both formats well would be an advantage. Dave B might be in the best position to do this, so hopefully he can provide a couple more examples of areas where he has trouble expressing CV information entirely in the backend. Regardless of what everyone ends up deciding on with regards to the front-end / back-discussion, I want to suggest separating the work into

On Oct 27, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Michael Price wrote: > Has there been much thought of attempting to automate this process? I could imagine a fairly standard script that scrubbed a history for interesting tidbits. Of course a standard methodology for labeling types of commits would help this in the future. > > A very simple script could at least do unique word counts and throw out words

I also think that we should keep one representation of debug info in the LLVM IR. There would be a need to extend some of the debug info entries to support CodeView, but I think that most of the information generated today by Clang for Dwarf can be used for generating CodeView. I can think about two missing extensions that are needed to CodeView: 1. In Frontend: File Checksum, it is

What's different about code that's been mem2reg'd from straight front end code, or anything that mem2reg hasn't been run on? PHINODES! It appears to be crashing when I try to cast a Value* that's really a BB* (from the PHInode operands) to a User*, insteresting since I am dyn_casting. I just caught this on cerr though (printing out what the Value* was each time). Let me

On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 01:46:53AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Debugging code generator problem! > <cbe><gcc><program>Warning: While generating reference output, program > exited with > non-zero exit code. This will NOT be treated as a failure. > > *** The C backend cannot match the reference diff, but it is used as the > 'known good'

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Mikhail Zolotukhin via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Kim, > > On Dec 10, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Kim Gräsman <kim.grasman at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Michael Zolotukhin > <mzolotukhin at apple.com> wrote: > > > Nice to IWYU developers here:) I wonder how

Here is a table detailing C++11 features support for Visual C++ 2010, 2012, 2013 http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/hh567368.aspx Specifically, range-based for loops are supported in Visual C++ 2012, 2013 but not in 2010. Yaron 2013/10/28 David Tweed <david.tweed at gmail.com> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: >

+Alex Bradbury Sounds to me like we have no known users still on VS 2012. So, how about we plan to move forward again with Chandler’s proposal for making this transition. For those who don’t want to dig through to the beginning here’s the basic plan: 1) Loop in cfe-dev and lldb-dev (Done!) 2) Wait until this email fully circulates in digests and LLVM Weekly so that everyone who has an objection

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:15:30PM -0700, John Cortes wrote: > If I use any of the regalloc parameters (local, ...) I get an error in > the LiveVariable.cpp file, in the part that I think cheaks for dead > code because a Variable didn't have a defined Instance to a Machine > instruction. > > " llc: LiveVariables.cpp:86: void >

Somehow it fails with operand out of bounds when the number of operands is 2 and I am asking for the second operand. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Lattner" <sabre at nondot.org> To: <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:24 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] weird issue with mem2reg, should have guessed > On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Patrick Meredith