similar to: [LLVMdev] LongTy in LowerInvoke.cpp

On Fri, 13 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Fri, 13 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >> >>> There is still one unneeded LongTy in LowerInvoke.cpp - something like >>> this pseudo-diff should probably get applied. >> >> >> What does this impact? > > This causes code like > > write(2,

On Fri, 13 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > There is still one unneeded LongTy in LowerInvoke.cpp - something like this > pseudo-diff should probably get applied. What does this impact? -Chris > Index: LowerInvoke.cpp > =================================================================== > RCS file: /var/cvs/llvm/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LowerInvoke.cpp,v >

On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 08:06 +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Actually that's the only case I stumbled over this problem in a somewhat > larger C++ program, and it's clearly the wrong type in LowerInvoke.cpp - > it really should be IntPtrTy. But maybe we could use just IntTy here to > avoid target dependencies. Wait a minute. You want to lower a 64 bit thing to a 32

Hi, I have this call instruction to printf inserted which is causing an assertion failure. Any pointers to where I am wrong : Code Dump : Function *printFn=M.getNamedFunction(std::string("printf")); Constant *str=ConstantArray::get("Value : %d\n"); std::vector<Value *> Args(2); std::vector<Constant *> GEPIndices(2);

On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 03:45:33PM -0700, Sriraman Tallam wrote: > I have this call instruction to printf inserted which is causing > an assertion failure. Any pointers to where I am wrong : > > Function *printFn=M.getNamedFunction(std::string("printf")); std::string() is unnecessary here as it's implicit. > Constant *str=ConstantArray::get("Value :

Constant *strcon==ConstantArray::get("Value : %d\n"); Sorry Typo. On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 03:45:33PM -0700, Sriraman Tallam wrote: > > I have this call instruction to printf inserted which is causing > > an assertion failure. Any pointers to where I am wrong : > > > > Function

Right now I am trying to capture the function name and the number of arguments , so this following is the pass I wrote . ------------------------------------------------------------- struct pass06a : public ModulePass { virtual bool runOnModule(Module &M) { std::vector<const Type*> pList; pList.push_back( PointerType::get(Type::SByteTy) ); pList.push_back(

Hi Jim, > I'm looking at the lowerinvoke pass as a starting point for getting > SJLJ based exception handling working on ARM, but am having some > troubles with it. When I run a simple testcase (attached) through llc > and specify -enable-correct-eh-support, llc asserts on me. It appears > there's been some bitrot somewhere. SelectDAGBuild and >

On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > All, > > I'm looking at the lowerinvoke pass as a starting point for getting > SJLJ based exception handling working on ARM, but am having some > troubles with it. When I run a simple testcase (attached) through > llc and specify -enable-correct-eh-support, llc asserts on me. It > appears there's been some

All, I'm looking at the lowerinvoke pass as a starting point for getting SJLJ based exception handling working on ARM, but am having some troubles with it. When I run a simple testcase (attached) through llc and specify -enable-correct-eh-support, llc asserts on me. It appears there's been some bitrot somewhere. SelectDAGBuild and SelectionDAGISel cooperate to track landing pads

Although most of the leaks I detected in LLVM were from singleton objects, there also seem to be some real leaks. One such leak (which is creating problems for me when I try to get rid of the constant singletons) seems to be a GlobalVariable created on line 145 of Transforms/Scalar/lowerInvoke.cpp -- any suggestions how I can make sure this GlobalVariable gets deleted? Actually I'm a bit

Hello, Jim > -enable-correct-eh-support, llc asserts on me. It appears there's been some > bitrot somewhere. Well, correct. Because many places expects exceptions to be dwarf-style. > Is it reasonable to expect that lowerinvoke is a good place to start for > doing what I'm after? I really don't think so. Since you're trying to map dwarf-based structures into sjlj

Thank you, Duncan. I rewrote the code, please help check why it still does not work: //declare global variable const Type *IntTy = Type::getInt32Ty(M.getContext()); const Type *ATyC = ArrayType::get(Type::getInt64Ty(M.getContext()), 1); GlobalVariable *CounterSize = new GlobalVariable(M, ATyC, false, GlobalValue::InternalLinkage,

On 6 March 2014 18:09, Mark Seaborn <mseaborn at chromium.org> wrote: > LowerAtomic "lowers atomic intrinsics to non-atomic form for use in a > known non-preemptible environment". LowerInvoke strips out exception > handling by converting invokes to calls, so that landingpads, resumes, etc. > become dead and can be removed by a later pass. > > (As an aside,

Hi Guangming Tan, >>> GlobalVariable: >>> int *counter; //counter the number of load/store operations in run-time >>> int *counterArray; //record the load/store addresses >> strictly speaking these are not arrays, they are pointers. Also, you have >> written them in some kind of C-style idiom. What are the declarations in >> LLVM IR? > const Type

于 2011/5/18 14:29, Duncan Sands 写道: > Hi Tan Guangming, > >> I want to access an array in my instrumentation code. For example: >> >> GlobalVariable: >> int *counter; //counter the number of load/store operations in run-time >> int *counterArray; //record the load/store addresses > strictly speaking these are not arrays, they are pointers. Also, you have

Okay, I'm past the GEP "have to dereference pointer first" problem of my last post. I now have a linkage error (I get undefined symbol when I try to assemble the program). gcc -o test.o test.s says: > /tmp/cczhiFk7.o(.text+0x7): In function `a': > : undefined reference to `_index_' _index_ is defined like this: > %_index_ = external global long ;

>>> >>> >>> The reason for the difference is that e.g "long" in >>> >>>> bool GOMP_loop_runtime_next(long, long) >>> >>> has a different size on different architectures. >>> >>> Currently we generate the prototypes and functions ourselves: >>>> declare i8 @GOMP_loop_runtime_next(i64*,

While it is great that LLVM has an IR Verifier, its a little troublesome to use because it separates the point of detection from the source of the problem. That is, the verifier gets run on a module or function after its been built. By that point, the compiler's state has moved past the point at which the error was placed into the module or function. Trying to track down the source of the

On 12/26/2010 01:31 AM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> The reason for the difference is that e.g "long" in >>>> >>>>> bool GOMP_loop_runtime_next(long, long) >>>> >>>> has a different size on different architectures. >>>> >>>> Currently we generate the prototypes and