similar to: [LLVMdev] opt -analyze

I think I misread the doxygen. verifyFunction & verifyModule return false if no errors are detected. However, my question now becomes why does the code produced by my transform pass verification, but it causes an assertion failure in the byte reader when it (the code produced by my transform) is passed to another invocation of opt? Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I also tried iterating

I don't mean to be a pain, but I was thinking about this a bit more. Does gcc ignore the const keyword? If not, why has LLVM chosen to deviate from gcc with respect to the const keyword? If so, then why do we bother using const in LLVM API code? I'm just curious and wanted to understand the thinking behind not preserving const. Thanks, Ryan Chris Lattner wrote: > This property

I don't follow what you mean - gcc doesn't ignore const and llvm doesn't deviate from gcc nor from the relevant language standards. Note that if you declare a global as const that we do capture this in the ir - what specifically do you want? Please provide an example. -Chris http://nondot.org/sabre http://llvm.org On Aug 14, 2007, at 11:58 PM, "Ryan M. Lefever"

This property isn't preserved on the llvm ir, because const can always be cast away. If you want mod information, then I suggest using the aliasanalysis interface to get mod ref info for a call. -Chris http://nondot.org/sabre http://llvm.org On Aug 8, 2007, at 12:07 AM, "Ryan M. Lefever" <lefever at crhc.uiuc.edu> wrote: > How is c's const keyword translated

How is c's const keyword translated when compiling c into llvm bytecode. I'm specifically interested in const pointer function arguments. Consider a function declared as follows in c: void f(const int* arg); When I examine f in llvm bytecode, how can I tell that arg is a pointer, whose contents can only be read, not written. Regards, Ryan

I also tried iterating through the functions of the module and calling verifyFunction(), which also returns false, but does not cause an abort or report anything to stderr about what caused the verification to fail. From the doxygen for verifyFunction() and verifyModule(), it seems like they both should print information to stderr if the verification fails and should abort opt if

I followed what you said and called verifyModule() with the AbortProcessAction option. verifyModule() returns false, but does not abort and does not print out any information about what caused the verification to fail. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: >> I am writing an interprocedural compiler pass. Because the passneeds >> information from a

Hi, I think I found a bug. I don't know if it's in upstream gcc or llvm-gcc4. int func() { const int *arr; arr[0] = 1; } $ llvm-gcc main.c -c; echo $? 0 $ gcc main.c -c main.c: In function 'func': main.c:4: error: assignment of read-only location The difference disappears when arr[0] is replaced by *arr. (I tried the above with gcc 4.1.2, 3.4.6, 4.0.3. (I don't

I am writing an interprocedural compiler pass. Because the passneeds information from a FunctionPass, e.g., the post-dominance frontier (PDF), and because a ModulePass is not permitted to require a FunctionPass, I am forced to make my pass a FunctionPass and do majority of its work in the doFinalization() method. When I run "opt -mypass -verify -o code2.bc code1.bc" I get no

This certainly doesn't occur in gcc mainline. In fact, I improved the error message, and added a error test to gcc just yesterday. On 8/9/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Nikhil A. Patil wrote: > > I think I found a bug. I don't know if it's in upstream gcc or llvm-gcc4. > > Looks like a bug, please file a bugzilla entry. >

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I am writing an interprocedural compiler pass. Because the passneeds > information from a FunctionPass, e.g., the post-dominance frontier > (PDF), and because a ModulePass is not permitted to require a > FunctionPass, I am forced to make my pass a FunctionPass and do majority > of its work in the doFinalization() method. ok > When

Hi Ryan, On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 18:06 -0600, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I am trying to disassemble some bytecode using llvm-dis: > llvm-dis -f -o llvmtest/sliceme2.cbc.ll llvmtest/sliceme2.cbc > > However, I am getting the following error. > > llvm-dis: Invalid bytecode signature: 464C457F (Vers=0, Pos=4) The problem is most likely that sliceme2.cbc is *not* bytecode. Open the

On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Nikhil A. Patil wrote: > I think I found a bug. I don't know if it's in upstream gcc or llvm-gcc4. Looks like a bug, please file a bugzilla entry. -Chris > int func() > { > const int *arr; > arr[0] = 1; > } > > $ llvm-gcc main.c -c; echo $? > 0 > > $ gcc main.c -c > main.c: In function 'func': > main.c:4: error:

I get a similar error when I try to disassemble a bytecode file generated by llvm-gcc released for llvm 1.9. Do I need to upgrade to a new llvm-gcc? Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I am trying to use llvm-ld but when I try to link several bytecode files > into a single bytecode file, it gives me the following error: > > llvm-ld -o benchmarks/bc-1.06/src/bc.c.bc

I am still diagnosing the cause of the assertion failure and will submit a bug when I better understand the problem. Reid Spencer wrote: > Ryan, > > This looks like a bug. Could you file it, please? > > Reid. > > On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 19:47 -0600, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > >>I have a compiler transform that I have been working on that produces >>bytecode

I was able to correct this problem by checking out the latest version of llvm-gcc4 from svn and compiling it from source. One note, in order to get llvm-gcc4 to compile, I had to add #include "llvm/Analysis/LoopPass.h" to gcc/llvm-backend.cpp Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I get a similar error when I try to disassemble a bytecode file > generated by llvm-gcc released for llvm

I am trying to disassemble some bytecode using llvm-dis: llvm-dis -f -o llvmtest/sliceme2.cbc.ll llvmtest/sliceme2.cbc However, I am getting the following error. llvm-dis: Invalid bytecode signature: 464C457F (Vers=0, Pos=4) How do I go about figuring out what the problem is? llvmtest/sliceme2.cbc is newly compiled using the same version of llvm-gcc as llvm-dis. -- Ryan M. Lefever

On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 14:27 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > Is a PR a bug report on the bugzilla database? Yes, so named because of the URL translation. I.e. http://llvm.org/PR123 takes you to bugzilla bug 123. PR == Problem Report. > I am also running > bugpoint to see if that yields anything. Okay, good. That might turn up something useful. If you suspect its a bug, please file

Is a PR a bug report on the bugzilla database? I am also running bugpoint to see if that yields anything. Reid Spencer wrote: > Hi Ryan, > > On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 13:34 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > >>I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: >> >>llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm >> >>However, I am getting the

I am trying to use llvm-ld but when I try to link several bytecode files into a single bytecode file, it gives me the following error: llvm-ld -o benchmarks/bc-1.06/src/bc.c.bc benchmarks/bc-1.06/src/bc.i.bc benchmarks/bc-1.06/src/execute.i.bc benchmarks/bc-1.06/src/getopt1.i.bc benchmarks/bc-1.06/src/getopt.i.bc benchmarks/bc-1.06/src/global.i.bc benchmarks/bc-1.06/src/load.i.bc