similar to: Migration from 3.8 to 6.0 questions (segfault most concerning)

I'm getting an error that I don't know how to fix. I've isolated the input as much as I easily can. I've attached the file that produces the problem. Just calling "llc err.ll -o err.s" generates the error. I'm going to try and isolate even further, but as I'm not sure what I'm looking for I don't know if I'll be successful. Does anybody know what this

I've reduced the example down to a minimum. The error is quite perplexing since the IR appears fine. It is a nonsensical infinite loop now, but that shouldn't be a problem. declare i64 @leaf_exception_personality(i64, i32, i64, i8*, i8*) declare i8* @count_malloc(i64) define internal i8 @junk___init_module_get_args_3() #0 { entry: %_exception = alloca { i8*, i64 } %ignore0 = invoke

I'm creating a struct of `{i8,i64}` and `DataLayout::getTypeAllocSize` is returning `12`. `getStructLayout` also gives an `4` offset for the second element. The native ABI, and clang, for the same type are producing a size of 16, with an alignment of 8, for the second element. This is for the system triple "x86_64-linux-gnu" What could be causing this difference in alignment and

It sounds like your DataLayout may not match clang's for x86_64-linux. What does it say about the alignment of i64? On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:05 PM edA-qa mort-ora-y via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I'm creating a struct of `{i8,i64}` and `DataLayout::getTypeAllocSize` > is returning `12`. `getStructLayout` also gives an `4` offset for the > second

I think I see a potential issue. My ExecutionEngine setup may not be using the same target as my object code emitting, and in this test case I'm running in the ExecutionEngine.  I'll go over this code to ensure I'm creating the same triple and see if that helps -- I'm assuming it will, since I can't imagine the exact same triple with clang would produce a different layout. On

What exactly is your alignment settings in your LLVM struct? Something like this would tell you the alignment of "something". const llvm::DataLayout dl(theModule); size_t size = dl.getPrefTypeAlignment(something); IIn "my" compiler, I don't do anything special to align structs, so it's plausibly your specific data-layout that says that i64 only needs aligning to

I'm having issues of my compiler, and JIT execution, of LLVM IR being rather slow. It's accounting for the vast majority of my full compilation time.  I'm trying to figure out why this is happening, since it's becoming an impediment.  (Note: by slow I mean about 3s of time for only about 2K of my front-end code, 65K lines of LLVM-IR) Using valgrind I see some functions which seem

I don't know if I'm setting the triple of my execution engine correctly.  This is leading to an issue where a struct `{i8,i64}` is not getting the same layout as the ABI expects. I setup my engine/module like this:      llvm::SmallVector<std::string,2> mattrs;      llvm::EngineBuilder builder{ unique_ptr<llvm::Module>(module) };      llvm::ExecutionEngine * ee = builder.    

On 11/23/2013 12:18 AM, Mikael Lyngvig wrote: > Thanks, you have a lot of valid points there. I have myself long ago > abandoned the path of using C as a backend language due to the very > factors you mention. > > However, as I said, the document was put together in 30 minutes. Not > exactly ready for prime time :-) > > I do agree that all of the things you mention

Hi edaqa, You might need to set your TargetOptions before calling selectTarget. E.g. builder.setTargetOptions(Opts).selectTarget(...); Or you could just let EngineBuilder call selectTarget for you (which is what the no-argument version of EngineBuilder::create does): llvm::ExecutionEngine * ee = builder. setErrorStr( &errStr ). setEngineKind( llvm::EngineKind::JIT ).

Yes, but why is it even copying the memory?  It already has a pointer which it can cast and load from -- and does so in other scenarios. I'm wondering whether this copying is somehow required and I'm missing something, or it's just an artifact of the clang emitter. That is, could it not omit the memcpy and cast the original variable? On 18/04/18 19:43, Krzysztof Parzyszek via

Hi, Could you share how you compile IR and which version of JIT you use (Orc, MCJIT)? Could it be that you are using interpreter instead of actual JIT? Cheers, Alex. > On 5. May 2018, at 08:04, edA-qa mort-ora-y via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I'm having issues of my compiler, and JIT execution, of LLVM IR being > rather slow. It's accounting for

On 05/05/18 17:58, Andres Freund wrote: > You're building LLVM with assertions enabled > (-DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON). > Some of those are fairly expensive... > Is there another way to get LLVM to check the correctness of my IR without the assertions? That's what I'm assuming I need the flag for (it's been a long time since I experimented with it) If there is no way

I believe the memcpy is there just as a consequence of Clang's design - different parts of the compiler own different pieces of this, so in some sense one hand doesn't see what the other is doing. Part of it is "create an argument" (memcpying the local variable into an unnamed value) and then the next part is "oh, but that argument gets passed in registers, so decompose it

Taking one step back, I'm not clear I'm even setting the triple/DataLayout on the module correctly:     module = new llvm::Module( "test", *llvm_context );     module->setTargetTriple( platform::target->triple ); Is that enough to create an appropriate DataLayout for the module?  I don't see anyway to convert a triple to a DataLayout, so I can't call

I'm implementing function arguments and tested this code in C:     // clang -emit-llvm ll_struct_arg.c -S -o /dev/tty     typedef struct vpt_data {         char a;         int b;         float c;     } vpt_data;         void vpt_test( vpt_data vd ) {     }     int main() {         vpt_data v;         vpt_test(v);     } This emits an odd LLVM structure that casts to the desired struct type,

I'm having a problem with my code generating empty lines and it appears to be the CLib `open` function generating an empty line when used within the JIT-VM. If I compile my program to an exe file it doesn't happen. I also have a lot of other code running in the VM without this problem, it's somehow particular to `open`. A chunk of my IR that calls `open`: defer_body_26:

There appears to be a difference between passing by value:     call void @foo(%some_struct %v) And using the `byval` attribute on a pointer:     call void @foo(%some_struct* byval %v) They are not compatible with each other yet logically do the same thing.  The second form is the one that appears to work with the ABI on linux, and the first one not. What is the reason for the difference? --

Hi, On 2018-05-05 08:04:54 +0200, edA-qa mort-ora-y via llvm-dev wrote: > I'm having issues of my compiler, and JIT execution, of LLVM IR being > rather slow. It's accounting for the vast majority of my full > compilation time.  I'm trying to figure out why this is happening, since > it's becoming an impediment.  (Note: by slow I mean about 3s of time for > only

Hi, On 2018-05-06 00:19:42 +0200, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > On 05/05/18 17:58, Andres Freund wrote: > > You're building LLVM with assertions enabled > > (-DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON). > > Some of those are fairly expensive... > > > > Is there another way to get LLVM to check the correctness of my IR > without the assertions? That's what I'm