similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm interpreter cannot execute llvm-gcc generated bitcode

Kristaps Straupe wrote: > Hi! > > We are compiling a very large C project in llvm and trying to execute > it in interpreter. There is a problem with executing the generated > bitcode. The interpreter is under-maintained in general, but this bug in particular is fixed SVN as-of r86428. Are you on a platform that isn't supported by llvm's jit? Nick > We are using

Hello again! We have fetched the latest llvm sources from repository and the original problem has went away. Though now we are facing a new problem with interpreter on the following c code: -------------- #include <stdarg.h> #include <stdio.h> void doTheThing(int dummy, ...) { va_list ap; int z; va_start(ap, dummy); while( (z = va_arg(ap, int))!=0) { printf("==

On 02/01/2010 01:13 PM, Kristaps Straupe wrote: > Hello again! > > We have fetched the latest llvm sources from repository and the > original problem has went away. Though now we are facing a new problem > with interpreter on the following c code: > > -------------- > #include <stdarg.h> > #include <stdio.h> > > void doTheThing(int dummy, ...) > {

Hi all, I'm experimenting with the Interpreter and all look good so far :) Unfortunately when I play with the visitBinartOperator() method I have the following assertion error: Support/APInt.cpp:233: llvm::APInt llvm::APInt::operator*(const llvm::APInt &) const: Assertion `BitWidth == RHS.BitWidth && "Bit widths must be the same"' failed. I have recompiled llvm and

Sanjay: let me know if this is something that will apply to 3.9. Thanks, Hans On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Quick update - the bug existed before I refactored that chunk in > InstSimplify with: > https://reviews.llvm.org/rL275911 > > In fact, as discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D22537 - because we have a

Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to InstructionSimplify.cpp, not InstCombineSelect.cpp? On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > Hi Hans - > > Yes, I think this is a good patch for 3.9 (cc'ing David Majnemer as code > owner). The functional change was

Thanks for notifying me. Yes, this was a recent change. Taking a look now. On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Michael Kuperstein <mkuper at google.com> wrote: > +Sanjay, who touched this last. :-) > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Ismail Badawi (ibadawi) via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> I'm hitting the

I've been debugging some strange happenings over here and I put an assert in APInt to catch what I think is the source of the problem: int64_t getSExtValue() const { // An i1 -1 is unrepresentable. assert(BitWidth != 1 && "Signed i1 value is not representable!"); To me an i1 -1 makes no sense whatsoever. It is not representable in twos-complement form. It cannot

David, Sanjay: ping? On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? > > Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to > InstructionSimplify.cpp, not InstCombineSelect.cpp? > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: >> Hi

LGTM On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > David, Sanjay: ping? > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? > > > > Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to > >

Hello again. I still think that you are wrong. Realignement with and esp,-16 not always changes stack poiner. If esp is already aligned to 16 byte boundary, it will not change! Take a look at following example. Assume esp has value 0x000001000 at start of X86CompilationCallback function. Then execution of it will yield following esp values: 0x000000FFC - after push ebp 0x000000FFC - after mov

Hello! We are running bitcode with JIT on visual studio project and we get strange external function call problems (jit generates jump to 00000000 address as can be seen in debugger) for libgcc functions like __fixunsdfdi, __divdi3 etc. Currently we have attached our own implementations of these functions to overcome this problem. What would be the correct way to do this on Visual Studio? Why

Hi, Has anyone had any success with running different PassManagers on llvm::Modules they've already JITed and are executing? In detail: 1) getting the IR, in form of an llvm::Module 2) calling PassManager->run() on the module 3) calling getFunction() and getPointerToFunction() to JIT the module 4) executing the JITed code using the function pointer received in step 3 and then what I

Hi folks, I'm hitting the below assertion failure when compiling this small piece of C code (repro.c, attached). My command line is: bin/clang --target=aarch64-linux-gnu -c -O2 repro.c clang is built from top of trunk as of this morning. It only happens at -O2, and it doesn't happen with the default target (x86_64). I tried to reproduce using just 'llc -O2' but didn't

I tried the following: - ConstantInt::get(Type::getInt64Ty(Ctx), APInt(0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, 64, false)) - ConstantInt::get(Type::getInt64Ty(Ctx), APInt(-1, 64)) I am receiving the following error: Assertion `NumBits <= MAX_INT_BITS && "bitwidth too large" failed -- Thanks & Regards, Dipanjan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

On May 24, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On May 24, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: >> Let us know if you would like extra eyes on the two PPC failures. >> Many >> of us have a lot of experience with C++. :-) Do you know where these >> allocations are? > > I don't mind if people help out, so here's some information: Nice!

Hi, I found the following wiki page in the Unladen Swallow project: http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/wiki/CodeLifecycle This would appear to answer my question. Could someone confirm for me if it's definitely unsafe to attempt to optimise/JIT any Modules while a different thread is currently executing a JITed function which has been generated from them? Or am I just missing

Hello, This simple patch fixes PR9112: Index: lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp =================================================================== --- lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp (revision 125281) +++ lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp (working copy) @@ -593,6 +593,8 @@ // Otherwise take the unions of the known bit sets of the operands, // taking conservative care to avoid

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Chris Lattner<clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > As we discussed on IRC, I don't think there is any reason for the > implementation of these methods to check these invariants.  These are clear > API invariants that the caller can check if needbe.  Making the > implementation check these will slow down clients which are known to be well >

I'm breaking this out from LLVM asserts thread. Here are all the assertions in APInt I consider should be recoverable: APInt::APInt: bitwidth too small Null pointer detected! APInt::getBitsNeeded: Invalid string length string is only a minus! Invalid radix APInt::fromString: Radix should be 2, 8, 10, or 16! Invalid string length string is only a minus Insufficient bit width Invalid digit in