similar to: [LLVMdev] Testcase for Name 'left' does not refer to a BasicBlock

Hi all, After a long time, I've updated to new LLVM. Everything compiles fine (which is great), but I see that compiling/linking into bitcode files still hasn't been solved in a satisfying way. Until that gets resolved, I'm sending an updated script, that will do the trick. Usage: cd $LLVM_PATH/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.0.1/ mv collect2 llvm-collect2 copy the attached

On 8/29/07, Domagoj Babic <babic.domagoj at gmail.com> wrote: > Seung, > > On 8/25/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > Ok. Note that LLVM can represent irreducible loops. You can handle > > this through code duplication. > > -Chris > > > If you are willing to invest more effort into a more complicated analysis, > in many cases you

Daniel, On 8/30/07, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > On 8/29/07, Domagoj Babic <babic.domagoj at gmail.com> wrote: > > Seung, > > > > On 8/25/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > > Ok. Note that LLVM can represent irreducible loops. You can handle > > > this through code duplication. > > > -Chris >

I am also trying to build llvm-gcc4 and llvm as you are on amd64 linux. I am currently running into the error "Did not get a target machine!" on the first file compiled by xgcc. Did you encounter this error at all? Also, what distribution did you use? GCC version, and target triple? Thanks, -Chandler Carruth On 12/10/06, Domagoj Babic <babic.domagoj at gmail.com> wrote: >

Seung, On 8/25/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > Ok. Note that LLVM can represent irreducible loops. You can handle > this through code duplication. > -Chris If you are willing to invest more effort into a more complicated analysis, in many cases you can even avoid code duplication. See this paper for details: @inproceedings{erosa94taming, author = {Ana M.

Hi all, I spent several hours today trying to compile llvm-gcc4 from svn and llvm from cvs on amd64 linux. In the case anyone else decides to try the same, this could ease your pain: 1) check out llvm, llvm-gcc 2) create llvm-obj llvm-gcc-obj export LLVM_INSTAL=<install_dir> cd llvm-obj export LLVM_OBJ=`pwd` ../llvm/configure --prefix=$LLVM_INSTALL --enable-debug-runtime 4) At one point,

Unless I'm missing something, the problem lies directly with the fact that you are trying to do a link-stage operation with the GCC frontend. GCC, by default, probably runs "ld" or another system linker, which grabs the executable from binutils. This linker hasn't been modified (yet) to include support for .bc files, but you're compiler is emitting byte code to the *.o files.

On 4/9/07, Domagoj Babic <babic.domagoj at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Traditionally, such analyses have been considered too expensive to be > practical, and were mostly an academic curiosity. The core of the > problem is the lack of adequate automated decision procedures which > could quickly determine whether a set of constraints is satisfiable or > not, and if it is

Chandler/Domagoj, On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 10:53 -0500, Chandler Carruth wrote: > Unless I'm missing something, the problem lies directly with the fact > that you are trying to do a link-stage operation with the GCC > frontend. GCC, by default, probably runs "ld" or another system > linker, which grabs the executable from binutils. This linker hasn't > been modified

Hi all, I have the same problem. My guess is that when a structure is passed as a parameter, you cast it into an array for optimization reasons (less parameters, less stack space). This is, certainly, a reasonable optimization, but makes inter-procedural static analysis more complex. Is there a way to disable it (my guess is that this should be doable by passing some parameter to llvm-gcc)? If

Hi, I've ran my static checker Calysto on openssh and found the following bug: Possible NULL-ptr deref (vc536): @/work/benchmarks/SOURCES/openssh-4.6p1/moduli.c:173 + ptr gtm returned from gmtime dereferenced without checking (gmtime can return NULL). There are probably more possible NULL-ptr dereferences, but Calysto currently does not check the usage of library functions (for instance, if

New version of Calysto reports a warning that looks like a bug to me: ------------------------------------------ Possible NULL-ptr deref (vc27053): @/work/projects/llvm/tools/Calysto/IfaceSpecs/clib.c:1823 Bug: ?? Explanation: choose_dh (dh.c:111) calls fopen twice (@120). If the first call to fopen fails (returns NULL), but the second one succeeds, fgets (@129) is called with f==NULL.

On Sep 29, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Domagoj Babic wrote: > > Check out scc_* iterators. Also note that the call graph > is not aware of the indirect calls, so you will need to write your > own CG implementation if you need to handle function pointers > soundly. > Chris, is this true? If so, it seems like a bad property for the CallGraphSCCPass framework. --Vikram

Hi all, On 11/28/06, Reid Spencer <rspencer at reidspencer.com> wrote: > * Venue: West Coast, USA. Probably either San Francisco Bay Area or > Seattle > * Time Frame: Post 2.0 release, summer 2007 > * Topics: Anything related to use or development of LLVM I'd vote for Seattle. The costs of organization should be lower than in the Bay Area. > * An indication of how

On Oct 2, 2007, at 1:03 AM, Domagoj Babic wrote: > Hi all, > > I have the same problem. My guess is that when a structure > is passed as a parameter, you cast it into an array for optimization > reasons (less parameters, less stack space). This is not an optimization. This behavior is to be ABI complaint when emitting code for your OS. That said, this is not a very good way to

Dear LLVMers, This email is intended for those interested in path-sensitive analysis, integer overflow analysis, static analysis, and (perhaps) loop invariant computation. Traditionally, such analyses have been considered too expensive to be practical, and were mostly an academic curiosity. The core of the problem is the lack of adequate automated decision procedures which could quickly

Hi, Here's something I don't understand... How come that UNDEF can appear as a branch condition at all? I just can't think of any ways. If you write something like fun() { int x; if (x > 100) { ... } else { ... } } LLVM generates a boolean temporary that compares (uninitialized) value of x with 100. Second, if it already can appear, isn't that a bug that

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Vikram Adve wrote: > On Sep 29, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Domagoj Babic wrote: >> Check out scc_* iterators. Also note that the call graph >> is not aware of the indirect calls, so you will need to write your >> own CG implementation if you need to handle function pointers >> soundly. > Chris, is this true? If so, it seems like a bad property for the

Hi, I have this piece of code: tm = local ? localtime(&curr) : gmtime(&curr); if (!tm) return NULL; which translates into something like: ---------------------------------------------- entry: %iftmp.0 = alloca %struct.tm*, align 8 %tm = alloca %struct.tm*, align 8 ... // Declares iftmp.0 as iftmp.0 call void @llvm.dbg.declare( { }* %iftmp.0, { }* bitcast

Hi Ryan, On 9/29/06, Ryan M. Lefever <lefever at crhc.uiuc.edu> wrote: > I have a FunctionPass F that needs a list of all the SCCs for use in its > doFinalization() method. Let's say I write a CallGraphSCCPass C that > creates an array of all SCCs. Let C be required by F, and let F call > getAnalysis<C>() from its doFinalization() method. Am I guaranteed that >