similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm-gcc 4.2 assertion failed on linux x86_64

Hi Chandler, This looks like a FE error, so you probably won't be able to get an LLVM bitcode file for us. You could help by whittling the test case down to something managable. First get a preprocessed file. Then I would suggest following the instructions on this page to reduce the testcase: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/A_guide_to_testcase_reduction That will help us a lot with the bug

Bam. This is about as reduced as it gets. I think I can spot the problem point: chandlerc at osiris ~/code/compilers/build/llvm-gcc $ cat testcase.i void foo () { float x __attribute__ ((mode (XF))); } chandlerc at osiris ~/code/compilers/build/llvm-gcc $ ./gcc/cc1 -fpreprocessed -march=k8 testcase.i -o /dev/null foocc1: /home/chandlerc/code/compilers/llvm-gcc/gcc/llvm-types.cpp:81: const

Hi Chandler, > void > foo () { > float x __attribute__ ((mode (XF))); > } nice reduction. I don't see any problem on x86-32, and I don't have access to an x86-64 box right now. Can you please open a PR for this, and also run in the debugger. When you hit the abort, use "up" to go up a stack frame or two or three, and print out the gcc types [use: call

On Wednesday 10 October 2007 12:53, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Evan Cheng wrote: > > I am turning 32-bit add into 32-bit LEA on x86-64 but that's > > perfectly legal. Both > > leal (%esi,%edi), %eax > > leal (%rsi,%rdi), %eax > > are legal assembly. It's just the former requires a 67H prefix due to > > the 32-bit address size. >

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Evan Cheng wrote: > I am turning 32-bit add into 32-bit LEA on x86-64 but that's > perfectly legal. Both > leal (%esi,%edi), %eax > leal (%rsi,%rdi), %eax > are legal assembly. It's just the former requires a 67H prefix due to > the 32-bit address size. > > This does point to a performance problem in the 3 address conversion > code (which I

Here you go: Starting program: /home/chandlerc/code/compilers/build/llvm-gcc/gcc/cc1 -fpreprocessed -march=k8 testcase.i -o /dev/null warning: no loadable sections found in added symbol-file system-supplied DSO at 0x7fff0d5fe000 [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] foocc1: /home/chandlerc/code/compilers/llvm-gcc/gcc/llvm-types.cpp:81: const llvm::Type* llvm_set_type(tree_node*, const

On Wednesday 10 October 2007 17:12, David Greene wrote: > This particular problem is gone (thanks!) but I'm having other troubles. > I'm tracking those down now. This is the current problem: [x86_64-off-dbg]: ./xgcc -B./ -B/install.official.debug/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/ -isystem

Hello, Duncan. > 3-fortran.diff > Get fortran to compile: use the common stubs and rip out > the incomplete collection of dummy routines someone already put in. > With this patch, the fortran build dies at this point: > > cc1: llvm/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/ScheduleDAG.cpp:367: void llvm::ScheduleDAG::AddOperand(llvm: > :MachineInstr*, llvm::SDOperand, unsigned int, const

Hi all, I'm currently trying to bootstrap llvm-gcc-4.2 from the latest stable LLVM release 2.6 on Solaris SPARC. The compilation with a self-build gcc-4.2.4 goes pretty well, however, I hit a seemingly widely know error during llvm-gcc's bootstrap in getting an assertion during the compile of /data/LLVM/src/GCC/RELEASE_26/gcc/libgcc2.c: /data/LLVM/src/GCC/RELEASE_26/gcc/libgcc2.c: In

I am getting an assertion firing while building TOT llvm-gcc on Cygwin in libgcc2.c :- /home/ang/build/llvm-gcc/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/ang/build/llvm-gcc/./gcc/ -B/home/an g/llvm-gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/bin/ -B/home/ang/llvm-gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/lib/ -isystem /home/ang/llvm-gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/include -isystem /home/ang/llvm-gcc/i686-pc-c ygwin/sys-include -O2

Luke Dalessandro wrote: > OK. So I've discovered --with-sysroot which seems to be grabbing and > patching the include files correctly. Now it's dieing with > > ./options.h:462: error: 'HOST_BITS_PER_INT' undeclared here (not in a > function) > ./options.h:462: error: bit-field 'padding' width not an integer constant > > which appears to be

Mike Stump wrote: > On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Luke Dalessandro wrote: >> I've started trying by trying to get sparc-sun-solaris2.10 (niagara) >> working. It appears that neither llvm nor llvm-gcc will build natively >> on the system, so I think that I need to build an llvm-gcc cross >> compiler. > > Get a gcc binary from someplace, use that to then build

On Dec 4, 2009, at 12:40 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Bill, > >> Here's what I get with TOT compiling with -Os. The orig.ll is what >> I get before r72619. Notice that orig.ll has only one function in >> it. Both the one you sent and duncan.ll have more than one >> function. It's not the fact that more than one function is showing >> up, but

Hi all, The patch below is to fix a problem with unaligned memcpys. This program: void Bork() { int Qux[33] = {0}; } will currently produce this LLVM code on PPC64: @C.0.937 = internal constant [33 x i8] zeroinitializer define void @Bork() { entry: %Qux = alloca [33 x i8] %Qux1 = bitcast [33 x i8]* %Qux to i8* call void @llvm.memcpy.i64( i8* %Qux1, i8* getelementptr ([33 x i8]*

>> > Only "_Z11dummysymbolv" should be there. Here's Doug's explanation of > why this should be so: > > Here's what it *looks* like is happening, and where the FE is probably > getting it wrong. First of all, the constructor in question is defined > outside of the basic_string class template as a non-inline definition: > >

Hi Bill, > Here's what I get with TOT compiling with -Os. The orig.ll is what I get > before r72619. Notice that orig.ll has only one function in it. Both the > one you sent and duncan.ll have more than one function. It's not the > fact that more than one function is showing up, but these functions in > particular shouldn't be there because of the implicit/explicit

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> Any ideas what could be wrong? >> >> Sorry for the delay, please try this tarball: >> http://nondot.org/sabre/2006-03-02-llvm-gcc-4.tar.gz > > Actually, do to a recent change in CVS, this tarball will probably not > work anymore. Please apply the attached (small) patch on top of it in >

Hello everyone, We are working on a particular points-to analysis. The final output of that analysis should not have the LLVM SSA temporaries (like, %0, %1). My doubt is that whether we can extract the normal C variables from LLVM IR or is there any way to differentiate between SSA temporary and local C variable? For e.g. in GCC I can check whether a particular variable is an SSA temporary like,

On Dec 4, 2009, at 12:52 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Bill, > >> There's a problem with your check-in for r72619 is causing "weak >> external" symbols to appear in C++ code when it shouldn't. Take >> this code for example, >> #include <stdexcept> >> void dummysymbol() { >> throw(std::runtime_error("string"));

Hello, Juergen > With the full patch, I get the assertion of the 'unhandled REAL_TYPE!', > so I wonder what needs to be done in order to get LLVM to produce > code for 'TREE_CODE(type) == REAL_TYPE' in the 'HandleArgument' function. > > > Does anyone have an idea? And why does this only happen on SPARC? What is the value of "Ty" in your case?