similar to: [LLVMdev] Counting # dynamic instructions in a benchmark

lli executed the bytecode corresponding to test_3.0_ml.ll without a failure, even though Function() is accessing an invalid memory address. The original code is in test_3.0.c, and the malloc() in Create() has been replaced by alloca() in test_3.0_ml.ll. I expected lli to segfault or similar when testing my code. Are my assumptions erroneous? -------------- next part --------------

Anders Alexandersson wrote: > Hello! > > I get some odd behaviour using my structs: > > "myKernelMap" = type {int (sbyte*)*, int ()*} > "Kernel" = type {"myKernelMap"*} > > The second member ( int()* ) is a pointer to the %getchar() function. > > I want to call getchar using this function: > > int

Hello! I get some odd behaviour using my structs: "myKernelMap" = type {int (sbyte*)*, int ()*} "Kernel" = type {"myKernelMap"*} The second member ( int()* ) is a pointer to the %getchar() function. I want to call getchar using this function: int "callmyKernelgetchar_kernel"("Kernel"* "myKernel") { "PTRMAP" =

Hello again, I'm exploring llvm's intermediary representation with this code: //////////////////////////////////// %.LC0 = internal constant [13 x sbyte] c"hello world\0A\00" declare int %puts(sbyte*) implementation int %main() { %cast210 = getelementptr [13 x sbyte]* %.LC0, long 0, long 0; call int %puts(sbyte* %cast210) ret int 0 }

Hi, I'm working on a CS326 compiler project, and I'm having some problems using string functions. Some LLVM programs produced are either aborting or giving incorrect results; however, if I disassemble the LLVM bytecode and recompile with GCC, everything works fine. I encountered the following error when running lli with '-force-interpreter' option: "Tried to execute an

Volodya, I think you may need to update your CFE and rebuild. I compiled the test using my local build and I didn't get the results you see below. I'm also very surprised to see this output. The first %tmp.11 should have been %tmp.1 .. not sure how it got corrupted. In any event, the attachment is obviously generated by code that runs quite differently because the virtual register names

Hi, I'm a cs326 student that uses LLVM for our MP. While some of the COOL program can be run seamlessly, I get the following assertion error for many of them. lli: Pass.cpp:95: bool llvm::FunctionPassManager::run(llvm::Function&): >> Assertion `(&F == mF) && "ModuleProvider does not contain this >> function!"' failed. >> >> It seems

Hey Renato, You are right, the failure on compile_time indicates that the test isn't even building. As provided, the tests don't actually define the cpuida() or calculateMHz() functions so that seems expected to me. The compile failures end up getting buried in the logs, but they will either be in the test.log file in the top-level sandbox directory, or inside the

The only thing I can think of is that string.h is being #included and has different signatures for memcpy and strncpy. Possibly "char" is not signed on your machine (very unusual) or some of the parameters are declared as "const". Reid. On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 18:19, Eric Zimmerman wrote: > Chris, > > I'm fine with using JIT, but I'm trying to understand this

Hi Daniel, I'm trying to add LivermoreLoops test to the benchmark suite (tar ball attached), but I'm getting the error below: --- Tested: 2 tests -- FAIL: SingleSource/Benchmarks/LivermoreLoops/lloops.compile_time (1 of 2) FAIL: SingleSource/Benchmarks/LivermoreLoops/lloops.execution_time (2 of 2) When I use the option to only run this test: --only-test

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Alex Li wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Thanks for responding so quickly, here's the stack trace. Okay, try applying this patch to your llvm/lib/VMCore/Pass.cpp file. It seems to have been in CVS since February 9, I assume that your tarball predates that. If this doesn't fix it, I'm not sure that there is anything that I can do, as I don't have the files you

Hey all, I compiled the code using both the -c and -S options. I can get the human readable IR but I still cannot run it using lli. The output of the IR looks like this. Can some of the information tell me about why the program is not running. ; ModuleID = 'Hel.c' target datalayout = "e-p:32:32" target endian = little target pointersize = 32 target triple =

Ok, here's the new patch. (Please tell me if I shouldn't mail patches directly on the mailing list.) While I was editing LowerGC.cpp I made a little test (not part of this patch, but the diff with LowerGC.cpp in cvs is attached). I've added a new intrinsic called llvm.gcroot_value(sbyte*, sbyte*), which takes a pointer directly instead and transforms it into an alloca. The idea is the

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > The only thing I can think of is that string.h is being #included and > has different signatures for memcpy and strncpy. Possibly "char" is not > signed on your machine (very unusual) or some of the parameters are > declared as "const". The problem is that the code generated by the C backend cannot include any system

Chris, I'm fine with using JIT, but I'm trying to understand this problem: 1. My LLVM program does not produce correct results 2. Using llvm-dis, I disassemble the bytecode to C 3. I recompile using GCC and the program _works correctly_. The only odd thing is when I recompile with GCC, I see these messages: pal3.c:195: warning: conflicting types for built-in function `strcmp'

On 16 November 2012 21:43, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > Once Michael Ilseman commits the fast math patch we will be able to implement floating point reductions. That's great news! Attached is the whole benchmark, divided into 24 kernels and running on LNT with FP comparison and timings. Unpack the file onto SingleSource/Benchmarks and change the Makefile to add

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > > Yes, this makes a tremendous amount of sense. Do you think you could > prepare some patches to make this happen? If you have any questions, feel > free to ask :) Ok, a patch[1] is attached. I didn't care to coerce the offset, since I assume that it is an uint, but maybe I should? Hopefully I've understood the llvm source

Eric Zimmerman wrote: > Chris, > > I'm fine with using JIT, but I'm trying to understand this problem: > 1. My LLVM program does not produce correct results > 2. Using llvm-dis, I disassemble the bytecode to C > 3. I recompile using GCC and the program _works correctly_. > > The only odd thing is when I recompile with GCC, I see these messages: > >

Hi, I wanted to count the number of "*LLVM*" instruction executed dynamically in any program. Have already tried "lli -stats -force-interpreter filename.bc", but it's not giving any information related to instruction count. lli --version output:- LLVM version 3.4svn DEBUG build with assertions. Default target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Host CPU: corei7 -- View

Target: FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE on i386 autoconf says: configure:2122: checking build system type configure:2140: result: i386-unknown-freebsd6.2 [...] configure:2721: gcc -v >&5 Using built-in specs. Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 3.4.6 [FreeBSD] 20060305 [...] objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc. Release build. llvm-gcc 4.2 from source.