similar to: [LLVMdev] ARM and lowerinvoke

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 3000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] ARM and lowerinvoke"

2009 Apr 22
0
[LLVMdev] ARM and lowerinvoke
Hi Jim, > I'm looking at the lowerinvoke pass as a starting point for getting > SJLJ based exception handling working on ARM, but am having some > troubles with it. When I run a simple testcase (attached) through llc > and specify -enable-correct-eh-support, llc asserts on me. It appears > there's been some bitrot somewhere. SelectDAGBuild and >
2009 Apr 21
0
[LLVMdev] ARM and lowerinvoke
On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > All, > > I'm looking at the lowerinvoke pass as a starting point for getting > SJLJ based exception handling working on ARM, but am having some > troubles with it. When I run a simple testcase (attached) through > llc and specify -enable-correct-eh-support, llc asserts on me. It > appears there's been some
2008 Aug 04
1
[LLVMdev] Assertion Failure: Not all catch info was assigned to a landing pad
I'm getting a very stubborn assertion failure that I don't understand. After I insert a call to an externally defined function into an invoked function, llc spits out the following assertion failure when I compile the bytecode: llc: SelectionDAGISel.cpp:4912: virtual bool llvm::SelectionDAGISel::runOnFunction(llvm::Function&): Assertion `FuncInfo.CatchInfoFound.size() ==
2010 Jun 05
1
[LLVMdev] ExtractBasicBlock() on block that ends with invoke or unreachable triggers assert() in llc
Here it is: llc: SelectionDAGISel.cpp:358: virtual bool llvm::SelectionDAGISel::runOnMachineFunction(llvm::MachineFunction&): Assertion `FuncInfo->CatchInfoFound.size() == FuncInfo->CatchInfoLost.size() && "Not all catch info was assigned to a landing pad!"' failed. 0 libLLVM-2.7.so 0x0140e2c8 Stack dump: 0. Program arguments: llc -O0 bullet.linked.bc.opt 1.
2009 Apr 21
0
[LLVMdev] ARM and lowerinvoke
Hello, Jim > -enable-correct-eh-support, llc asserts on me. It appears there's been some > bitrot somewhere. Well, correct. Because many places expects exceptions to be dwarf-style. > Is it reasonable to expect that lowerinvoke is a good place to start for > doing what I'm after? I really don't think so. Since you're trying to map dwarf-based structures into sjlj
2014 Mar 08
2
[LLVMdev] Is LowerInvoke's "-enable-correct-eh-support" option unused?
On 6 March 2014 18:09, Mark Seaborn <mseaborn at chromium.org> wrote: > LowerAtomic "lowers atomic intrinsics to non-atomic form for use in a > known non-preemptible environment". LowerInvoke strips out exception > handling by converting invokes to calls, so that landingpads, resumes, etc. > become dead and can be removed by a later pass. > > (As an aside,
2011 May 17
2
[LLVMdev] "Not all catch info was assigned to a landing pad!"' failed
Hi, My transformation phase inserts an if-the-else construct into a BB. If that BB contains llvm.eh.exception, I get an Assertion at some later point: lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/FunctionLoweringInfo.cpp:212: void llvm::FunctionLoweringInfo::clear(): Assertion `CatchInfoFound.size() == CatchInfoLost.size() && "Not all catch info was assigned to a landing pad!"' failed. Is
2015 Aug 01
3
[LLVMdev] SelectionDAG viewers, filter-view-dags question
The diff is not only the && and || but also the leading !: diff --git a/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp b/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp index 58f029fbe9fc..7ee06fc153b2 100644 --- a/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp +++ b/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp @@ -659,7 +659,7 @@ void SelectionDAGISel::CodeGenAndEmitDAG() {
2011 Jun 06
0
[LLVMdev] Understanding SelectionDAG construction
Hi Ankur, > The flags "-view-sched-dags".. described in the doc doesn't seem to work. ( > "llc -help" doesn't list it ). as far as I remember, displaying DAGs during compilation is only enabled in "debug builds" [1] of LLVM. You probably have to re-configure and re-compile LLVM to enable this feature. Best regards, Christoph [1]
2017 Oct 23
2
EnableFastISel
Hi, In SelectionDAGISel::SelectAllBasicBlocks if (TM.Options.EnableFastISel) FastIS = TLI->createFastISel(*FuncInfo, LibInfo); followed by if (!FastIS) { LowerArguments(Fn); } else { The above implies that implementing FastIS is optional. In contrast to that, testing whether FastIS is actually been used is done by testing if TM.Options.EnableFastISel is set. For example
2011 Jun 06
4
[LLVMdev] Understanding SelectionDAG construction
I am trying to understand the SelectionDAG construction from LLVM IR. I have gone through the doc "The LLVM Target-Independent Code Generator" on LLVM site. This gives a great initial overview. However I am unable to catch the actual control flow for the llvm->selectionDag conversion. The flags "-view-sched-dags".. described in the doc doesn't seem to work. ( "llc
2015 Aug 11
2
Fwd: [LLVMdev] SelectionDAG viewers, filter-view-dags question
Hi, It's changed a few times over the last year. I believe xdg-open spawns whichever application your desktop environment would use to open the file so you should be able to tell it to use dotty. From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Taylor via llvm-dev Sent: 11 August 2015 00:30 To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: [llvm-dev] Fwd: [LLVMdev]
2015 Jul 27
1
[LLVMdev] SelectionDAG viewers, filter-view-dags question
Daniel, Ok, thanks. Simple fix. We'll just make correction in local copy for now, one less thing to port later :) Thanks. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > I've just looked at my checkout of 3.6 and it looks like the fix wasn't > merged. I don't have the revision number for the fix to hand but in >
2011 May 17
0
[LLVMdev] "Not all catch info was assigned to a landing pad!"' failed
Hi Kostya, > My transformation phase inserts an if-the-else construct into a BB. > If that BB contains llvm.eh.exception, I get an Assertion at some later point: > > lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/FunctionLoweringInfo.cpp:212: > void llvm::FunctionLoweringInfo::clear(): Assertion `CatchInfoFound.size() == > CatchInfoLost.size() && "Not all catch info was assigned to a
2007 Dec 20
2
[LLVMdev] Whither exceptions
Chris would like to turn on -enable-eh rather than -enable-correct-eh- support in the llvm testsuite for those targets that support it. The following patch is intended to turn it on for x86 and ppc. Anton, Duncan, are you OK with this? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mf.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 669 bytes Desc: not
2015 Jul 27
2
[LLVMdev] SelectionDAG viewers, filter-view-dags question
I've just looked at my checkout of 3.6 and it looks like the fix wasn't merged. I don't have the revision number for the fix to hand but in lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp, this: MatchFilterBB = (!FilterDAGBasicBlockName.empty() && FilterDAGBasicBlockName == FuncInfo->MBB->getBasicBlock()->getName().str());
2009 Jul 18
0
[LLVMdev] x86 unwind support
Hi Kenneth, this way of implementing unwind won't interact properly with dwarf exception handling. That's rather bad. Ciao, Duncan.
2015 Jan 20
3
[LLVMdev] strlen in fast-isel
It seems that fast-isel for intel does not handle strlen. It's a general problem in fast-isel . ~/llvmw/build/Deb~/llvmw/build/Debug+Asserts/bin/clang -O0 -mllvm -fast-isel-verbose -mllvm -fast-isel strlen1.c strlen1.c:12:3: warning: implicitly declaring library function 'printf' with type 'int (const char *, ...)' printf("%i\n", len); ^
2007 Dec 20
0
[LLVMdev] Whither exceptions
Hi Dale, > Chris would like to turn on -enable-eh rather than -enable-correct-eh- > support in the llvm testsuite for those targets that support it.  The   > following patch is intended to turn it on for x86 and ppc.  Anton,   > Duncan, are you OK with this? yes, though see below. > Chris would also like to discuss renaming the EH command line   > options, and I have to agree
2007 Dec 20
3
[LLVMdev] Whither exceptions
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Dale, >> If these were visible to end users I would not like exposing sjlj, an   >> implementation detail; however my understanding is that they aren't.   >> On the basis that they're intended for use by llvm geeks, I think   >> either of these is an improvement, except in the second case I think   >> the