similar to: [LLVMdev] Opaque Undef Types?

Dale, Thanks for reviewing this. I have some newbie questions regarding the test-suite for you or anyone: I'm trying to run the test-suite as described in the "LLVM Testing Infrastructure Guide" on a Ubuntu x86 64 bit system. Initially I ran into problems with missing tools like yacc, which I fixed as I went along until the make at the test-suite level completed. However, I get

CBE is fairly broken everywhere AFAIK, don't worry about it. Most of the JIT failures are in tests that exercise exception handling. Not sure if that is supposed to work in your environment, it works in some JITs and not others. The LLC failures are cause for concern. On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:59 AMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > Dale, > > Thanks for reviewing this. > > I have

Dale, I took a closer look at the first llc failure, initp1. Looking at the initp1.llc file in gdb, it appears that the statically constructed objects without the init_priority attribute are being constructed before those with it, though the test seems to expect the opposite. The initp1.llc.s file seems to have the .ctors table in the right order, but the _init code is reading the table in

On Aug 30, 2010, at 3:11 PMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > Dale, > > I took a closer look at the first llc failure, initp1. Looking at > the initp1.llc file in gdb, it appears that the statically > constructed objects without the init_priority attribute are being > constructed before those with it, though the test seems to expect > the opposite. > > The

Is it legal to substitute non struct type instead of opaque type? For example: ; 1.ll declare void @F(i32*) ; 2.ll %T1 = type opaque declare void @F(%T1*) Is it normal to replace T1 with i32 here? If yes. Will the next types are isomorphic?: %T1 = type opaque { i32, %T1* } { i32, i32* } -Stepan.

2009/9/15 Carlos Sánchez de La Lama <carlos.delalama at urjc.es>: > Hi all, > > I am creating a function and trying to call it using the LLVM API. It > seems that whenever the function type includes an opaque-typed > parameter, the CallInst::Create call causes an assert: > > Assertion failed: ((i >= FTy->getNumParams() || FTy->getParamType(i) > ==

On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:03 AMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > I'm close to confirming that I get the equivalent results from the > test-suite with my changes, compared to a fresh tree, on a Linux x86 > 64 bit box. > > When that is the case, may I check in my current changes for the > LLVM side? In principle, yes, I'd like to rereview if it's changed. > My

I'm close to confirming that I get the equivalent results from the test-suite with my changes, compared to a fresh tree, on a Linux x86 64 bit box. When that is the case, may I check in my current changes for the LLVM side? My preference is to develop the mult-alt support incrementally, rather than one big check-in, as I get nervous sitting on a lot of changes for a long time. I feel this

In my project I have a group of foreign types (C++ classes) that I want to use, but don't want to represent as structs within LLVM. For example, for each field in each C++ class I have a setter and getter function that I'd like to use. The setters and getters are "extern C" functions to avoid problems with C++'s name mangling. After going over the documentation it

Hi all, I am creating a function and trying to call it using the LLVM API. It seems that whenever the function type includes an opaque-typed parameter, the CallInst::Create call causes an assert: Assertion failed: ((i >= FTy->getNumParams() || FTy->getParamType(i) == Params[i]->getType()) && "Calling a function with a bad signature!"), function init, file

Actually the 2.8 fork is coming up tomorrow and I'm thinking maybe we should wait until after that. Is this something you really want to get in 2.8? On Sep 1, 2010, at 6:29 PMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > Dale, > > Thanks. It's not changed, but I've enclosed a fresh patch against > today's trunk. > However, I'm seeing 28 unexpected failing tests in

Hi Tanya, Here's my second attempt on Fedora Core 5. The changes this time are: 1. Using GCC 4.0.3 as the compiler 2. Building everything from source (no pre-built binaries used) BUILD LLVM WITH GCC 4.0.3 * No issues, just the usual warnings. BUILD LLVM-GCC WITH GCC 4.0.3 * No issues RUN LLVM-TEST WITH GCC 4.0.3 * The following failures were encountered. Some of them are

Dale, Thanks. It's not changed, but I've enclosed a fresh patch against today's trunk. However, I'm seeing 28 unexpected failing tests in llvm/test on x86 Linux 64 today. But it's the same on an unmodified tree, so I guess I'm still okay. It passed at one point for me with these changes. -John On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com>

I'm having some trouble using bugpoint with newer version of gcc (bugpoint debug output below). I looked into the "conflicting type for malloc" problem and it doesn't seem easy to solve due to the unknown size of size_t (see LowerAllocations.cpp). The "void main()" problem is probably a result of this test being converted from Fortran. I'll have to dig into

Hi Tanya, I've been checking the state of the various llvm-test failures on X86/Linux with GCC 3.4.6 and llvm-gcc4. I haven't finished this, but I thought the following might be useful for other people that are testing the release on Linux. Each group of failing tests below is followed by a comment about why its failing. llc /MultiSource/Applications/oggenc/oggenc jit

Everything builds fine on sparc. The configure script needs to be fixed though (see previous email). Sparc testing results: make check: # of expected passes 1189 # of expected failures 34 Regressions Single Source: None New Failures Single Source (new tests): 2005-05-12-Int64ToFP: llc,jit Regressions MultiSource: Applications/d/make_dparser: llc, cbe, jit

Tanya, Here's the results for GNU/Linux, 2.6.18-1.2200.fc5smp (Fedora Core 5) HIGH LEVEL COMMENTS * The llvm-1.9.tar.gz file unpacks to a dir named "llvm". Shouldn't that be llvm-1.9? * LLVM was built in Release mode in all cases * I don't think this is ready for release. In particular the llvm-gcc4 binary seg faults on FC 5 for most of llvm-test programs. *

For the heck of it I tried upgrading to gcc 3.4.2 (from 3.3.3). It didn't make a difference. So here are the failures for llvm-test. All diffs are against the "native" output. ===================== MultiSource/Applications/sgefa cbe failed differently from jit/llc. First cbe: 84c84 < One-Norm(A) ---------- 8.879153e+02. --- > One-Norm(A) ---------- 8.879156e+02.

> For example: > $ llvmgcc ackerman.c -o ackerman -Wl,-native-cbe BTW, Chris, what should be then an analogy of "gcc -O3 -S foo.c" in LLVM framework? The invocation of $ llvmgcc -S ackerman.c -o ackerman -Wl,-native-cbe does not produce native assebler output as one might expect. -- Valery

On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 08:01:23AM -0800, Reid Spencer wrote: > On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 17:49 +1100, Emil Mikulic wrote: > > I've compiled all the object files that make up libstdc++ and libsupc++ > > into LLVM bytecode: > > http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~emil/libstdcxx.tar.bz2 (438KB) > > > > A simple test program, x.cpp: > > > > #include