similar to: [LLVMdev] Headers & Libraries

Hi llvm-devel, I have migrated my codebase from llvm-3.6 to llvm 3.8.1-stable. Although I was able to resolve most of the problems, I am facing issues resolving the following: To insert an instruction immediately after the first instruction within a basic block, I first get all instructions in my basic block in an instruction container list. Once that is done, I insert my new instruction in the

You'll need to include the "support" library to resolve these LeakDetector symbols. You can do this by either placing the path to "support.o" or -lsupport on your link line (in your Makefile). Note that if you use the -l option, you'll likely need to use -L<path> as well to tell the linker where to find "libsupport.a" (file included by the

"Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: >> On 2015-Oct-20, at 11:23, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >> >> I think the implicit iterator conversions are much less important >> now that we have range based for loops, but I still like having >> them. > > IMO, if a developer has an ilist iterator

Hi LLVM'ers When linking tblgen tool I get below error message on MinGW. I have put TOOLLINKOPTS=-ldbghelp in Makefile.config. However, when rearranging library dbghelp to the end of the g++ line, tblgen gets linked. -------------------------- make[2]: Entering directory `/C/Projects/build/MinGW/llvm/utils/TableGen' Linking Debug executable tblgen /C/Projects/build/MinGW/llvm/mklib

I think the implicit iterator conversions are much less important now that we have range based for loops, but I still like having them. On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 2015-Oct-07, at 17:57, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> > wrote: > > > > I've been

Ok that works but why on earth would I get a runtime error of: Type.cpp:132: const llvm::Type* llvm::Type::getForwardedTypeInternal() const: Assertion `ForwardType && "This type is not being forwarded to another type!"' failed. Aborted For the line of code: MyModule = new Module( std::string("IDontWork")); > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-admin

I've been digging into some undefined behaviour stemming from how ilist is typically configured. r247937, r247944, and r247978 caused a UBSan failure to start firing on our Green Dragon bots, and after an IRC conversation between David and Nick and Mehdi, we added a blacklist: -- $echo "src:$WORKSPACE/llvm/include/llvm/CodeGen/MachineFunction.h" >> sanitize.blacklist --

Hi Bill, I am using the following version of BuildMI : MachineInstrBuilder BuildMI(MachineFunction &MF, const TargetInstrDesc &TID, unsigned DestReg) I do the following : void createInstrs(std::vector<MachineInstr *>& ilist) { Machine Instr *mi; mi = BuildMI(MF, someTID, somereg);

> On 2016-Jul-11, at 09:05, Ulrich Weigand <ulrich.weigand at de.ibm.com> wrote: > > uweigand accepted this revision. > uweigand added a comment. > This revision is now accepted and ready to land. > > I'll defer to your expertise on that. Patch looks good to me. > > I guess I'm not fully familiar with some of the C++ language details here. Would you

I tried on a different machine x86_64 ( vs x86 ) and I don't have these issues anymore (the tests are failing on the x86 machine because of a segmentation fault) Both builds were done using: g++ (GCC) 4.2.4 (Ubuntu 4.2.4-1ubuntu4) Something should be wrong with my environment... The only differences I noticed during the compilation are the following warnings (which appear several times, but

AAAH! I see you are still at 2.5. Then this patch (the fix) is relevant for you: <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/ADT/ ilist.h?r1=66061&r2=68785&diff_format=h> Cheers, Gabor On 27 Sep., 05:45, hc2... at columbia.edu wrote: > Dear developers: >      When I am doing basicblock pass, I meet a bug: there is an   > iterator "I" in

Hi, I am writing an llvm pass wherein I require to iterate MachineBasicBlocks in reverse. The ilist reverse_iterator is not functioning as expected. Nor is the ilist iterator working in reverse (although -- operator is overloaded to do so). for (MachineFunction::iterator MBBI = mf_->end(), E = mf_->begin();MBBI != E; --MBBI) { MachineBasicBlock *MBB = MBBI;

Hi All, I have just started using LLVM . i am facing a issue while using ilist container. Here is a struct with ilist container as its one element. typedef ilist<Instruction *> InstListType; struct list_node { int Impact; InstListType InstList; }; list_node

Yes, it is a pass. Here is a very general overview of the file structure as far as the AA is concerned. LLVM is not my strong-suit, I do hardware simulators, not compilers. using namespace llvm; char RelRecovery::ID = 0; static RegisterPass<RelRecovery> X("relRecovery", "Reliability transformation for lightweight recovery"); void

Hi, Can anyone tell me how to erase an instruction, (specially a load/store instruction) ? If I use Instr->eraseFromParent(), I get following error. Note the instruction does not have any use. opt: /home/chayan/llvm/llvm-2.6/include/llvm/ADT/ilist.h:218: llvm::ilist_iterator<NodeTy>& llvm::ilist_iterator<NodeTy>::operator++() [with NodeTy = llvm::Instruction]: Assertion

Jon, > You want: > TaintVar->insertAfter(FirstI); This worked! Thank you. On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > > > On 8/25/16 7:01 AM, Shehbaz Jaffer via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> I tried an alternative way of adding instruction by first getting the >> first instruction of the basic block, and then

Hello all, I am working with someone else's LLVM code, which is about 8 months old. Part of this pass involves AliasAnalysis, and I'm getting the above assertion when the pass completes. The dump is as follows: -------------------------------- Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. 0xf7fdf430 in __kernel_vsyscall () (gdb) bt #0 0xf7fdf430 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xf602e921 in

Griffin Wright wrote: > > Hello all, > > I really, really, really need your help. This is my third email now, > please don't ignore me! I understand this must be a trivial thing, but > I've ground to a halt, and REALLY need some guidance. Please see below for > the context of my problem. I'm not trying to be a waste of time, but I'm > desperate here.

Hello all, I really, really, really need your help. This is my third email now, please don't ignore me! I understand this must be a trivial thing, but I've ground to a halt, and REALLY need some guidance. Please see below for the context of my problem. I'm not trying to be a waste of time, but I'm desperate here. I have a getAnalysisUsage method which does the following

Dear developers: When I am doing basicblock pass, I meet a bug: there is an iterator "I" in a basicblock, and it is not pointing to the first instruction in this basicblock. However, "I--;" will fail by an assertion. The basic block ("I" is pointing to the second instruction) in test.ll: bb: ; preds = %bb1 %1 = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* noalias