similar to: [LLVMdev] Need Some Help!

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 8000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Need Some Help!"

2003 Nov 19
0
[LLVMdev] Need Some Help!
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Reid Spencer wrote: > I have a "first version" of Stacker up and running. Structurally its a > lot like llvm-as. When I run it, I get: > Leaked objects found: after running pass 'Function Pass Manager' > LLVM Value subclasses leaked: This is coming from the LLVM "LeakDetector" stuff. The idea is that you are not supposed to create
2014 Dec 11
2
[LLVMdev] Metadata/Value split has landed
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 05:27:45PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: > +zalman at google.com > Hi Duncan, This patch plus another small change fixes the assertion failure for me. With the patch alone, the void* overload of addGarbageObject() was being used by MDNode::getTemporary(), so I had to cast the object as an MDNode*: diff --git a/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp b/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp
2014 Dec 11
2
[LLVMdev] Metadata/Value split has landed
I committed: r224058 = 966942da9e68b59c31ce770e7f94c55a63482c6b r224060 = da75f7277e3a129aed8ef8aa4e0d84de40b76fd4 r224061 = f88e4c8e9171045454b2c8e05054c2af8da3fe4f Let me know if somehow you're still hitting the problem. r224061 removes leak detection entirely from `MachineInstr`. There aren't any leaks to be had there, since they're allocated in a custom allocator. They're
2003 Dec 09
2
[LLVMdev] Linking Errors?
Can anyone help with these crazy linking errors?? /home/kgibbs/CS321/CVS/llvm/lib/Debug/vmcore.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZN4llvm12Lea kDetector16addGarbageObjectEPKNS_5ValueE+0xd): In function `llvm::LeakDetector::addGarbageObject(llvm::Value const*)': /usr/include/c++/3.2.1/bits/stl_pair.h:148: undefined reference to `llvm::LeakDetector::addGarbageObjectImpl(llvm::Value const*)'
2014 Dec 10
3
[LLVMdev] Metadata/Value split has landed
> On 2014 Dec 10, at 14:08, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:21:08AM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >> >>> On 2014 Dec 10, at 08:40, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:22:16PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >>>> The `Metadata`/`Value`
2003 Dec 09
0
[LLVMdev] Linking Errors?
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
2003 Dec 09
3
[LLVMdev] Linking Errors?
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
2003 Nov 18
3
[LLVMdev] Stacker
As a learning aid for myself and for other would be source language writers for LLVM, I have decided to write a very simple language I'm calling "Stacker". Its kinda like Forth but way, way, way simpler. Its nowhere near ANS Forth and it won't be useful for much other than demonstrating how to create a source language using LLVM. I thought I'd mention this just so everyone
2013 Oct 24
2
[LLVMdev] LLVM use chains
Hi, I have: ... @.str1 = private unnamed_addr constant [21 x i8] c"Now f is a function\0A\00", align 1 ; Function Attrs: ssp uwtable define i32 @_Z1fv() #2 { entry: %call = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([21 x i8]* @.str1, i32 0, i32 0)) ret i32 0 } Then I get after trying to erase the function from the module: 511
2014 Dec 10
2
[LLVMdev] Metadata/Value split has landed
> On 2014 Dec 10, at 08:40, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:22:16PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >> The `Metadata`/`Value` split (PR21532) landed in r223802 -- at least, the >> C++ side of it. This was a rocky day, but I suppose that's what I get >> for failing to stage the change in smaller pieces. >>
2010 Jun 14
1
[LLVMdev] Block management
Hi Chris, >> In my code generator, I need to prepare a block and add instructions to it, then insert this block in a function defined later (that is I cannot create the function at the beginning stage become some info are not available yet). I tried to create a block without any "parent" (BasicBlock::Create(getGlobalContext(), "init"), fill it, but how to link it with
2007 May 18
0
[LLVMdev] Antw.: 2.0 Pre-release tarballs online
> On Slackware 10.2 (GCC 3.3.6), I got an error during a debug build with the > header files using uintptr_t (not recognised as a type). Putting "#include > <stdint.h>" in include/llvm/BasicBlock.h (llvm) and in > "include/llvm/ValueSymbolTable.h" (frontend) resolved this. Ok. This is now fixed on the release branch. Thanks! > Also, I got linking
2010 Jun 13
2
[LLVMdev] Block management
Hi, In my code generator, I need to prepare a block and add instructions to it, then insert this block in a function defined later (that is I cannot create the function at the beginning stage become some info are not available yet). I tried to create a block without any "parent" (BasicBlock::Create(getGlobalContext(), "init"), fill it, but how to link it with the created
2013 Jul 14
3
[LLVMdev] Analysis of polly-detect overhead in oggenc
On 07/14/2013 08:05 AM, Star Tan wrote: > I have found that the extremely expensive compile-time overhead comes from the string buffer operation for "INVALID" MACRO in the polly-detect pass. > Attached is a hack patch file that simply remove the string buffer operation. This patch file can significantly reduce compile-time overhead when compiling big source code. For example, for
2010 Jun 13
0
[LLVMdev] Block management
On Jun 13, 2010, at 2:12 AM, Stéphane Letz wrote: > Hi, > > In my code generator, I need to prepare a block and add instructions to it, then insert this block in a function defined later (that is I cannot create the function at the beginning stage become some info are not available yet). I tried to create a block without any "parent" (BasicBlock::Create(getGlobalContext(),
2012 May 07
6
[LLVMdev] Metadata for Argument, BasicBlock
Hi Duncan, On 5/6/12 6:12 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Ralf, > >> Is there a clean way to attach metadata nodes to Arguments and/or >> BasicBlocks? > > not at the moment. Feel free to work on adding this functionality! I am looking into that now. I decided to temporarily go for the following syntax for BasicBlock metadata (subject to discussion): entry:
2007 May 17
8
[LLVMdev] Antw.: 2.0 Pre-release tarballs online
Hi, Op 15-mei-07, om 10:23 heeft Tanya M. Lattner het volgende geschreven: 1) Download llvm-gcc4 binary and llvm. Compile and run make check. I did a debug build on OSX 10.4.9 and everything went fine. Results of "make check" (see ppc.log): === Summary === # of expected passes 1630 # of unexpected failures 21 # of expected failures 2
2013 Oct 24
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM use chains
On 23 October 2013 22:41, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch> wrote: > Hi, > I have: > ... > @.str1 = private unnamed_addr constant [21 x i8] c"Now f is a > function\0A\00", align 1 > ; Function Attrs: ssp uwtable > define i32 @_Z1fv() #2 { > entry: > %call = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([21 x > i8]* @.str1, i32 0,
2012 May 07
0
[LLVMdev] Metadata for Argument, BasicBlock
On May 7, 2012, at 7:21 AM, Ralf Karrenberg <Chareos at gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Duncan, > > On 5/6/12 6:12 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: >> Hi Ralf, >> >>> Is there a clean way to attach metadata nodes to Arguments and/or >>> BasicBlocks? >> >> not at the moment. Feel free to work on adding this functionality! > > I am looking into that
2003 Nov 20
3
[LLVMdev] Basic Block Chaining
Newbie Question .. (sorry if its redundant/silly) .. As I've started to develop Stacker, I had assumed that simply adding BasicBlocks to a function in sequence would imply that there is an implicit unconditional branch from the end of one basic block to the start of the next block. Based on the assertion checks that I get when I tried this, I assume that it is required to place a terminating