similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm-ld 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 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

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

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

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 following assertion failure in llc. The bytecode has been processed with opt, it passes opt bytecode verification. I'm not too familiar with backend code generation. Does anyone have any insight in to what the problem might be or how to go about

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 following assertion failure in llc. The > bytecode has been processed with opt, it passes opt bytecode > verification. I'm not too familiar with backend

I am writing a transformation that needs to add a call to a function F() at the beginning of main() with the addresses of argc and argv as parameters to F(). However, the bytecode file I'm transforming has not allocated space on the stack for argc and argv. So, I developed my transformation to change main() from: ----- int main(int %argc, sbyte** %argv){ entry: ... // some use of

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

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

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

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

I am trying to make and install a version of llvm that I check out of cvs last night. When I configured LLVM, I set the prefix to a directory inside my home directory. However, when I did a make install I got the following errors: llvm[3]: Installing Debug Bytecode Archive /lib/libc.a /usr/bin/install: cannot create regular file `/lib/libc.a': Permission denied make[3]: ***

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 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 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

Is there a conversion tool to convert llvm bytecode into c code? Regards, Ryan -- Ryan M. Lefever [217.333.7231] [http://www.ews.uiuc.edu/~lefever]

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

I am trying to use LLVM as a source to source C compiler. I use llvm-gcc to convert file.c->file.bc. Then I use opt to run my own compiler passes to convert file.bc->file.opt.bc. Then I use llc to convert file.opt.bc->file.opt.c. Now, I want to use normal gcc to compile file.opt.c into an executable. However, I'm getting the following errors: test.opt.c:89: warning:

I updated dsa to mainline cvs. Poolalloc is broken, however. On Mar 6, 2007, at 3:39 AM, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > What versions of llvm and llvm-poolalloc should I check out of cvs, in > order to use DSA? In a previous post John Criswell suggested checking > llvm and llvm-poolalloc out of cvs using the -r release_19 flag. > However, there were several post later that said that

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 that passes the verifier. However, when I try to read that > bytecode back in, I get the assertion failure below. > > llvm::BytecodeReader::ParseConstantPoolValue(unsigned