similar to: [LLVMdev] Suggestion: include object data in assertion messages

On Mar 12, 2009, at 1:47 AM, someguy wrote: > However, assertion messages are static strings, and don't include any > information about the particular object/value which caused the > assertion. In a 'data oriented' system like llvm, this makes it really > difficult to pinpoint which node is actually triggering the assertion. > > For example, in

Hi, I am writing a backend for the Blackfin processor from Analog Devices. I just started so I still have a lot to learn about the code generator. So far, I can compile test/CodeGen/Generic/BasicInstrs.ll correctly, but that is about it. The Blackfin 32-bit registers divide naturally into several classes. I have modelled these register classes without knowing anything about what the code

Thats good... but the NDEBUG region gets printed even if the assertion passes. Ideally, a printf-style format string would be better. That way you get info relevant to your assertion, with your assertion. On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Mar 12, 2009, at 1:47 AM, someguy wrote: >> However, assertion messages are static

Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> writes: > On Mar 15, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: >> Am I misusing register classes, or is this simply functionality that >> has not been written yet? The existing backends seem to have only one >> register class per machine value type. > > The x86 backend has an example of a partial solution. The GR32 >

Don't all IDEs have a debugger that can set a breakpoint and call functions from the program to see what they print? If you can't set breakpoints or call dump() on an LLVM value, you're going to have more problems than just this assertion. I don't think it's worth annotating all assertions with extra information, but this one probably happens often enough to deserve it. If

On Mar 16, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> writes: > >> On Mar 15, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: >>> Am I misusing register classes, or is this simply functionality that >>> has not been written yet? The existing backends seem to have only >>> one >>> register class per

On Mar 15, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > Hi, > > I am writing a backend for the Blackfin processor from Analog > Devices. I > just started so I still have a lot to learn about the code > generator. So > far, I can compile test/CodeGen/Generic/BasicInstrs.ll correctly, but > that is about it. > > The Blackfin 32-bit registers divide naturally

Thanks for forwarding Jeffrey's tip Paul. Unfortunately, coming mostly from the application programming side, I haven't seriously used a command line debugger since the Apple IIe days in the early 80s (geez, i guess that makes me kinda old as far as programmers go). So I'm not familiar with gdb even at an intermediate level. Not that gdb isn't ubiquitous for tools development or

On 06/04/10 05:12, Curtis Faith wrote: > I concur. I've run into this exact assert at least 10 different times in the last two weeks since I started with LLVM as I'm learning the particulars of the typing system for function calls in particular. > > It would be nice if it would tell you what expected signature was, what the value of i was so you know which parameter went wrong,

Bill Wendling wrote: > On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:51 PM, srs wrote: > > >> 2. There seems to be an issue in ScheduleDAGSDNodes.h when in debug >> mode. The problem is the evaluation of "&SUnits[0];" which ASSERT's in >> VC++'s vector[] implementation (when _HAS_ITERATOR_DEBUGGING is on). >> >> As a work-around, I commented out the debug

Hi, I think I've found a bug in this method. I ran it on an MI which already had two implicit-use operands, and which defined a register with a subregindex, ie reg::lo16. For the def-operand, with a subregindex, an implicit-use operand was added with this code: VirtUseOps.insert(VirtUseOps.begin(), MI.getNumOperands()); MI.addOperand(MachineOperand::CreateReg(VirtReg,

Hi all, While testing my compiler on win32 in JIT mode, I ran into a couple of issues: 1. I linked the compiler with the lib files resulting from the cmake created VS.NET build. While everything built just fine, the ExecutionEngine::create call always returned NULL. The fix was to also link with JIT.obj (thanks aKor for pointing me in the right direction). I would have thought that linking

On Oct 7, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Jonas Paulsson wrote: > Hi, > > I think I've found a bug in this method. > > I ran it on an MI which already had two implicit-use operands, and which defined a register with a subregindex, ie reg::lo16. > > For the def-operand, with a subregindex, an implicit-use operand was added with this code: > >

On Dec 31, 2008, at 5:57 AM, srs wrote: > Bill Wendling wrote: >> On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:51 PM, srs wrote: >> >> >>> 2. There seems to be an issue in ScheduleDAGSDNodes.h when in debug >>> mode. The problem is the evaluation of "&SUnits[0];" which >>> ASSERT's in >>> VC++'s vector[] implementation (when

Bill Wendling wrote: > On Dec 31, 2008, at 5:57 AM, srs wrote >> Bill Wendling wrote: >> >>> On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:51 PM, srs wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> 2. There seems to be an issue in ScheduleDAGSDNodes.h when in debug >>>> mode. The problem is the evaluation of "&SUnits[0];" which

Hi, Suppose I have llvm Instruction as : %9 = load i32* %b, align 4 and I want to extract the name of temporary value used here ie 9. Can any body tell that how can I do that? thanks and regards, Ambika

Hi all, Please i need help, I have a method that takes 2 arguments with type char *: void branchPredict(char *b1, char *b2){ --- -- } i'm supposed to add this method, in an IR basic bloc: to add it into a basic bloc i do: //i: is the basic bloc std::vector<Value*> void_43_params; Constant* tbname = ConstantArray::get(M.getContext(),i->getNameStr() , true); Constant* pbname =

Hi, in lib/Analysis/RegionPass.cpp there are 3 occurrences of: CurrentRegion->getNameStr() These are slowing down compile times with polly. I would suggest to either remove these calls, or only turn on when the programmer asks for -debug. The reason for the slow pretty printing of types is the same as previously discussed in: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-July/063755.html

Yes, I'm saying that the implicit-def operand that was added in this case ended up as #4, out of 6, when the operands list was reallocated in addOperand(). If addOperand was rewritten, I think it's best not to add my fix for ProcessUses(), as I wrote earlier. Jonas Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] VirtRegRewriter.cpp: LocalRewriter::ProcessUses() From: stoklund at 2pi.dk Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011

On 08/28/2013 10:08 AM, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Hi,tic > > in lib/Analysis/RegionPass.cpp there are 3 occurrences of: > CurrentRegion->getNameStr() > These are slowing down compile times with polly. > I would suggest to either remove these calls, > or only turn on when the programmer asks for -debug. > > The reason for the slow pretty printing of types is the same as