similar to: [LLVMdev] GlobalVaraible and Function have the same name

I'm trying to set up some automated testing, and I'd like to have multiple instances of ExecutionEngines, so that the state from the first test doesn't alter the second state. Right now I'm doing something along the lines of: Module *emptyModule = new Module("emptyModule"); ExecutionEngine executionEngine = ExecutionEngine::create(emptyModule);

Hi all, I have a question regarding populating ValueSymbolTable of a Function. Is it that ValueSymbolTable is populated automatically whenever an alloca instruction is created using IRBuilder or do we need to explicitly populate?? If we need to populate explicitly, the insert method in ValueSymbolTable is private, so how can we do it? Currently, I am trying to access the symbol table as below:

Hello, I'm using llvm 2.5. I initially built it with GCC 4.1.2 and it completed building. But when I run it with a simple test function, it fails with the following issue: Value still in symbol table! Type = 'i32' Name = 'a' Value still in symbol table! Type = 'i32' Name = 'b' llc: ValueSymbolTable.cpp:29: llvm::ValueSymbolTable::~ValueSymbolTable():

Do the buildbots only build debug components? I am seeing lots of this on trunk with release-style builds: [x86_64-off-opt]: Failed with signal(SIGABRT) at line 1 [x86_64-off-opt]: while running: llvm-as < /ptmp/dag/llvm- project.official/llvm/tags/RELEASE_25/test/Transforms/TailDup/basictest2.ll | opt -tailduplicate -disable-output [x86_64-off-opt]: Value still in symbol table! Type =

Hi, I've been writing some optimization passes for LLVM and had good luck with the simple stuff, but I am running into all kinds of trouble trying to make copies of variables within a BasicBlock as part of a LoopPass I am trying to make copies of the variables that are in scope in the loop body like so: //Remove the existing terminator

subramanyam wrote: > > Hi all, > I have a question regarding populating ValueSymbolTable of a Function. > Is it that ValueSymbolTable is populated automatically whenever an alloca > instruction is created using IRBuilder or do we need to explicitly > populate?? It's maintained by LLVM for you, by Value::setName and other methods. Nick

Adding llvm-dev as that might be a more suitable audience for this discussion. (& I know Lang's been playing around with the same problem in the Orc JIT, so adding him too) Is there any basis/reason to believe that the .X suffix is a better, more principled one than straight X? Is that documented somewhere as a thing the demangling tools will ignore? On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:06 PM,

Nick Lewycky wrote: > > > > It's maintained by LLVM for you, by Value::setName and other methods. > > Nick > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > I am getting the following error when trying to

Dan, Thanks for the info. Unfortunately for the time being we are using (for the most part) the 2.3 release (with a couple of patches that Dave Greene has applied). The first-class aggregates is one of the things we don't yet have in the LLVM we're working with. I'll look again to see if there's a ReturnInst::Create( ) which I can pass an array of llvm::Value *'s to,

Greetings, I'm working on getting our compiler's interface to LLVM to mimic the way the LLVM-GCC inserts instructions to generate AMD64 ABI compliant code. I'm trying to create ret i64 %mrv, double %double_mrv37 which is basically what LLVM-GCC puts out. However if I use lcc -march=cpp to get the API code I need it has the following line:

I'm have a [PATCH] isDereferenceablePointer: look through gc.relocates and I want to know how to test this patch. So far, I've found one candiate: speculative execution in SimplifyCFG (test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/SpeculativeExec.ll). However, it's somewhat involved to show that SimplifyCFG does kick in for gc.relocate. Is there a better way to directly test it? Signed-off-by:

Hi, I have some questions about ssh server and Linux, hope someone can help me :) 1. Does Ssh server have a limit for the number of users that can connect ? 2. Does Ssh have restrictions about an username length? Or username format? We would like to use something like: foo_<GUID> ex: foo_ 5CEB80CF-150F-4ff0-8743-A6493FA200C1 3. Does Linux have a limit of user

Hi, currently LLVM does not handle the conflict between a section and a global _definition_ with the same name well. A section defines a local symbol with the same name (pointing to the start of the section). Depending on the order of declarations, LLVM either silently overrides the section symbol with the global, or crashes with fatal error: error in backend: symbol 'xxx' is already

Hi, I want to implement a simple common sub expression pass in llvm2.8 which demands replacing the uses of the redundant expressions with a temporary variable. So, to introduce new temporary variable I have inserted an AllocaInst (...) providing the name of the temporary and desired type. But whenever I am going to insert a LoadInst for that variable I am getting segmentation fault. It is

Hi All, I need to implement something like a variable for each basic block How to implement lookup table in LLVM , I think ValueSymbolTable is closest one but how could I do that by it -- * Rasha Salah Omar Msc Student at E-JUST Demonestrator at Faculty of Computers and Informatics Benha University* * e-mail: rasha.omar at ejust.edu.eg* P* Please consider the

Hi Tony, I just checked LLVM 2.3 and ReturnInst has these: static ReturnInst* Create(Value * const* retVals, unsigned N, Instruction *InsertBefore) static ReturnInst* Create(Value * const* retVals, unsigned N, BasicBlock *InsertAtEnd) which are what you're looking for. In LLVM trunk, MRV-syntax LLVM assembly files and bitcode

Hi, > While attempting to compile llvm-gcc on Intel x86_64 2-way 4-core machine, > i got the following errors: this is the second report of this, see http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3710 > gcc version 4.1.2 20070626 (Red Hat 4.1.2-14) gcc 4.1 has endless problems compiling LLVM, see http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#brokengcc Here's an extract: GCC 4.1.1: GCC fails

Hello all, I'm getting started on a project using LLVM's opt tool to do static analysis, printing call graphs and such. When compiling C programs to IR (and eventually to call graphs), function names remain the same (main, function1, function2 etc.), but when compiling the same program as C++, the function names often have cruft added to them (_Z9function1v, _Z9function2v etc.) which

Hello, I wonder why there is a difference in how llvm-gcc compiles .c and .cpp files. Example: ---bar.cpp---- int bar() { return 42; } -------------- $ llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -c bar.cpp Now running bar.o through llvm-dis gives: -------------------------------- define i32 @_Z3barv() nounwind { < clip > } -------------------------------- Above, function 'bar' has been renamed

It is possible to change the name of a Function with Value::setName, so this patch _could_ cause incorrect answers. You should add a test that calls setName("intrinsic.name") to make sure this keeps working, regardless of where this patch goes. You might be able to catch such events in the ValueSymbolTable and update the intrinsic ID, but I can't find an obvious place to put that