similar to: [LLVMdev] Folding instructions on X86

I have ran under valgrind memcheck the process using libLLVM-2.9.so (rev.126022) and got several errors: ==24227== Invalid read of size 1 ==24227== at 0x40274C9: memcpy (mc_replace_strmem.c:497) ==24227== by 0x40D5B84: char* std::string::_S_construct<char const*>(char const*, char const*, std::allocator<char> const&, std::forward_iterator_tag) (in

Hey everyone, So I have an LLVM pass that appears to run completely and work fine, and then it aborts at the very end. When exiting the final runOnFunction call, I get the following error / stack dump. I cannot figure out why this is happening for the life of me - does anyone have any ideas? I'm not trying to do any crazy deallocation or anything, it just seems like a normal pass to me.

Hi Griffin, did your pass create a data structure that holds values somehow, and forgot to delete it? Also, try running under valgrind in case this is due to a memory error of some kind. Ciao, Duncan. > So I have an LLVM pass that appears to run completely and work fine, and > then it aborts at the very end. When exiting the final runOnFunction call, > I get the following error /

Hi Has anybody tell me how to create some new type qualifies in LVM? A type qualify, like "const" in C, is useful for program analysis. I hope that I can set/get the type qualify of any value in a program analysed. Or, if I could add a property to the value class and set/get the property, it is same to add some new type qualifies. So, I simply insert a "int" private

Using Valgrind hasn't shown me anything terribly unusual. And I'm confused because its not even trying to delete a real instruction; deleting a void type with no name? That doesn't make any sense... Any other hints? I've seen a few posts in the past about this relating to some internal LLVM bugs... -Griffin On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:26:41 +0100, Duncan Sands <baldrick at

Hello, I've been stuck with a problem for about a month, and it has stumped everyone in my lab. I have a function pass that runs, and when it finishes and opt goes to return, I get: While deleting: void % An asserting value handle still pointed to this value! UNREACHABLE executed at /x/grwright/llvm/llvm-2.9/lib/VMCore/Value.cpp:569! On a simple test case, the error becomes 'i32 %'

Xia, LLVM doesn't really use type qualifiers the way you're thinking about it. In LLVM parlance, types are neither const nor non-const, they just define the fundamental nature of a value. However, LLVM fully supports Constant Values (see include/llvm/Constant.h) and constant global variables (see include/llvm/GlobalVariable.h). You might want to read up on the LLVM IR a bit here:

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

On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 05:24:12PM +1000, Emil Mikulic wrote: > http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~emil/llvm2.1-check-debug.txt Here's an ARM test that cores: $ llvm-as < /home/emil/ll/llvm-2.1/test/CodeGen/ARM/2007-01-19-InfiniteLoop.ll | llc -march=arm -mattr=+v6,+vfp2 Segmentation fault (core dumped) $ gdb `which llc` llc.core [...] (gdb) where #0 0x0853d606 in

On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:41:38PM +1000, Emil Mikulic wrote: > The "make check" produced: > === Summary === > > # of expected passes 2209 > # of unexpected failures 41 > # of expected failures 5 > gmake[1]: *** [check-local] Error 1 > gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/home/emil/ll/objdir-llvm/test' > gmake: ***

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

Hi, Probably some of the leaks Valgrind reports are spurious, but the numbers seem to be significant enough to demand some attention: ==10132== LEAK SUMMARY: ==10132== definitely lost: 15,624 bytes in 558 blocks. ==10132== indirectly lost: 44,548 bytes in 1,591 blocks. ==10132== possibly lost: 37,576 bytes in 98 blocks. ==10132== still reachable: 1,336,876 bytes in 1,364 blocks.

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.

I'm working on a pass (both LLVM and the pass have been compiled in debug+asserts mode) but when the pass crashes in the stack trace printed by opt the names of the functions inside my pass don't appear (see frames 14-16). How can I have them displayed? > cafxx at ubuntu:~/Projects/llvm2/Debug+Asserts/bin$ clear && ./opt > -load=CGF.so -cgf -debug test.S > [...] >

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

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

Hi, I have been trying to randomize blocks in a program and modified "BasicBlockPlacement.cpp" for the purpose but getting segmentation fault.I am not able to determine the problem.Can anyone please decrypt these error messages or suggest what might be the possible cause of failure? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, Thank Brian Gaeke so much. Following TraceBasicBlocks.cpp, I modified the code as below and could insert instruction or function I need into anywhere in Module. But it works well without BB->getInstList().push_back(InstrCall), and if I add the BB->getInstList().push_back() following new CallInst(), I got error information when runing opt. What is the reason for it? And is it necessary

Is this the same issue as PR1686? If so, please add to it. What kind of host machine are you using? Thanks, Evan On Sep 19, 2007, at 12:45 AM, Emil Mikulic wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 05:24:12PM +1000, Emil Mikulic wrote: >> http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~emil/llvm2.1-check-debug.txt > > Here's an ARM test that cores: > > $ llvm-as <

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