similar to: [LLVMdev] Unknown LLVM intrinsic

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

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

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'

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

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

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

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: > >

Is there any way to get it to delay this optimization where it goes from this: Initial selection DAG: BB#0 'bclr64:entry' SelectionDAG has 14 nodes: t0: ch = EntryToken t2: i64,ch = CopyFromReg t0, Register:i64 %vreg0 t4: i64,ch = CopyFromReg t0, Register:i64 %vreg1 t6: i64 = sub t4, Constant:i64<1> t7: i64 = shl Constant:i64<1>, t6

Setting the ISD::ROTL to Expand doesn't work? (via SetOperation) You could also do a Custom hook if that's what you're looking for. On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Phil Tomson <phil.a.tomson at gmail.com> wrote: > ... or perhaps to rephrase: > > In 3.9 it seems to be doing a smaller combine much sooner, whereas in 3.6 > it deferred that till later in the

We've recently moved our project from LLVM 3.6 to LLVM 3.9. I noticed one of our code generation tests is breaking in 3.9. The test is: ; RUN: llc < %s -march=xstg | FileCheck %s define i64 @bclr64(i64 %a, i64 %b) nounwind readnone { entry: ; CHECK: bclr r1, r0, r1, 64 %sub = sub i64 %b, 1 %shl = shl i64 1, %sub %xor = xor i64 %shl, -1 %and = and i64 %a, %xor ret i64

One option may be to prevent the formation of ROTL, if possible, and then generating rol by hand. Marking it as "expand" would likely stop the DAG combiner from creating it. Then you could "preprocess" the selection DAG before the instruction selection and do the pattern matching yourself. -Krzysztof On 11/3/2016 4:24 PM, Phil Tomson via llvm-dev wrote: > I could try

When I increased COLS to the point where the loop could no longer be unrolled, the selection dag code generator generated effectively the same code as the default X86 code generator. Lots of redundant imul/movl/addl sequences. It can't clean it up either. Only unrolling all nested loops permits it to be optimized away, regardless of code generator. Jeff Cohen wrote: > I noticed

Hi, Is there a way to modify the string such as char a or char b? Could I use the way like "Replace an instruction with another Value" in Programm Manual? In fact, what I am interested in is string with visible expression, not all string, and I am trying to hide the orignal string by using simple way like XOR.. Is there a way to reorder the basic blocks? Thanks. Qiuyu C Source

hi, I try to build hello.cpp using both llvmg++ and GNU g++, the generate llvm bytecode's size is about 960K, and the size of binary code generated by g++ is only 13K. Could anyone explain the difference between the two result? BWT: I rebuild the cfrontend in RH linux9.0, but when I build the hello.cpp the llvmG++ reports warnings too, it shows: ----------------------------- [yue at RH9

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 --------------

I have an objective-c file, bar.m, that I try to process in the following way generating the error shown below. Any help would be appreciated. I suspect the error is in the first few lines of output. thanks, Todd > cfrontend-g++ -o bar.bc bar.m > llvm2cpp -o bar.cpp bar.bc > g++ -c bar.o bar.cpp > ld -o bar bar.o -l objc -l LLVMCore -l LLVMSupport -l LLVMSystem > ./bar Global

I noticed that fourinarow is one of the programs in which LLVM is much slower than GCC, so I decided to take a look and see why that is so. The program has many loops that look like this: #define ROWS 6 #define COLS 7 void init_board(char b[COLS][ROWS+1]) { int i,j; for (i=0;i<COLS;i++) for (j=0;j<ROWS;j++) b[i][j]='.';

>Right. This looks like it's just a simple bug in llvm2cpp. >CppWriter.cpp:698 contains: > > if (CA->isString() && CA->getType()->getElementType() == >Type::SByteTy) { > Out << "Constant* " << constName << " = ConstantArray::get(\""; > printEscapedString(CA->getAsString()); > //

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:05:32PM +0300, Vladimir Merzliakov wrote: > >>Is assert(!NewSTy->isAbstract()) must pass after this line? > > > >In this case, yup. > > > I create test program and assert failed in it: > > { \2 *, sbyte * } How do I decode the \2 in this? I am creating types through this interface and I get quite a mess seen below. And this is

hi, I want to know what is exact meaning in the following code. target endian-- %struct..TorRec-- %struct.TorRec-- implementation-- ;<sbyte>[#uses=1/0]-- how to explain them in details? Does anyone give me a guide? thanks yueqiang -------------------------------------------------------------- target endian = little target pointersize = 32 %struct..TorRec = type { int, void ()* }