similar to: [LLVMdev] Machine Verifier question.

On May 9, 2010, at 5:27 AM, Lang Hames wrote: > Running the following command, > > llc -asm-verbose=false -O3 Output/ReedSolomon.llvm.bc -o Output/ReedSolomon.llc.s -verify-machineinstrs > > in llvm-test/SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc currently yields seven errors, all of the form > > *** Bad machine code: PHI operand is not live-out from predecessor *** > - function:

> > It seems to me that the only instructions > > with dead definitions that I should not remove are the calls. Is it true? > > I would like to know if a code like this below is safe, that is, besides > > call instructions, is there other instructions that must stay in the code > > even if their definitions are dead? > > > > MachineInstr * mi = iter; >

Hello, For my backend, I define and use a CC register similiarly to the EFLAGS register in X86 (I call it CCFLAGS). But if I make all arithmetic/logic instructions affect it ('let Defs = [CCFLAGS] in...' in InstrInfo.td) I run into // The only case we should have a dead physreg here without a killing or // instruction where we know it's dead is if it is live-in to the function

A physical register cannot be live across the block. So it must have a use in the block or it must be marked dead. From your dump, it looks like the CCFLAGS defs are not being marked dead. It's unclear where things went wrong, but you can step through LiveVariables to debug this. Evan On Jan 9, 2009, at 2:50 AM, Christian Sayer wrote: > Hello, > > For my backend, I define and

Folks, I'm running into something which looks like a bug in linearscan allocator. Of course I can't be 100% sure it's not some unobvious mistake on my part, so I'd like to hear your opinion. First, I attach two files -- LLVM asm and the asm for my target. The problem with assembler is: on line 171 it uses register gr2, which is copied from gr6 above, on line 161. The only

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > where %reg1032 is dead. Right. One of the jobs of the register allocator is to coallesce register copies. Once coallesced, they can be removed. > I'm removing these instructions. In Linear scan, they are removed too. > I'm removing all the dead definitions from instructions that are not > function calls, and

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > I am working in a register allocator for LLVM, and I realized that, > after I perform register allocation, there is many move instructions that > are dead code, and can safely be removed. It is easy for the RA algorithm > to remove these instructions. It seems to me that the only instructions > with dead definitions

Suppose I need to align an address register to even boundary. Since address register can't be AND-ed with anything, I move the value into general purpose register, to "and" and then move it into address register. Unfortunately, the register allocator crashes. Here's machine code: %reg1030 = - %reg1027, 1 %reg1031 = move %reg1030 %reg1032 = + %reg1031,

Dear All, I need some witty computer related proverbs or one liners that some of have used in the past as footers for your emails for example. I particularly remember a PERL based transliteration joke/footer that when run in PERL produces a witty output.... This is to fix a problem internally created by an over zealous salesman at my company pinning up A4 sheets with bullSh*t sales proverbs

Dear guys, I am working in a register allocator for LLVM, and I realized that, after I perform register allocation, there is many move instructions that are dead code, and can safely be removed. It is easy for the RA algorithm to remove these instructions. It seems to me that the only instructions with dead definitions that I should not remove are the calls. Is it true? I would like to know

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > First, I attach two files -- LLVM asm and the asm for my target. The problem > with assembler is: on line 171 it uses register gr2, which is copied from gr6 > above, on line 161. The only predecessor of this basic block is jump on line > 90. The problem is that gr6 is not initialized in the interval from the > function entry till the

Evan, >A physical register cannot be live across the block. So it >must have a use in the block or it must be marked dead. From >your dump, it looks like the CCFLAGS defs are not being marked >dead. It's unclear where things went wrong, but you can step >through LiveVariables to debug this. Thanks for your response. I did quite some stepping through the llc passes, and it

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Martell Malone <martellmalone at gmail.com> wrote: > Just as a point for building the builtins shouldn't we just need llvm-ar ? Thanks for pointing this out and I hope llvm-ar is up to the task. Even if targets must still port binutils, each step toward LLVM self-reliance is a step in the right direction. Without getting too far ahead of ourselves,

Hi all, When compiling some programs using the Mips backend i'm getting this assert message on lib/CodeGen/LiveInterval.cpp:227: "Range is not entirely in interval!" I don't know yet if it's something that is missing on the backend code or why the range to be removed it outside the interval, does anyone have any clue? A more detailed output is attached. The program i tried

Morning, Having done an svn up this morning all my specs are broken with the following: SQLite3::SQLException in ServiceConfig with minimum set of valid parameters should return nil for the service path'' SQL logic error or missing database C:/development/sandbox/prototypes/user_admin_client/config/../vendor/plugins/rspec_on_rails/lib/spec/rails/dsl/behaviour/rails_example.rb:17:in

I recently examined a bug in a program, and it turned out that the customer was using the section attribute as a form of inline-assembly mechanism, with something like: __attribute__((section("sectionName\nasm\nasm\nasm"))) this was really ugly and not at all obvious where the problem originated. Is there any way of getting LLVM or CLang to validate the name used in the section

> > Cool. This then makes your other point about requiring LLVM tools less of > an issue because the out-of-tree builds can use whatever tools you choose. > We just need to make the builtins work so that you don’t need them already > built. With that in mind for an intiial solution before you get to stripping out the cmake stuff so that it can do an out of tree bootstrap. I have

hi: Just a litle update: 41/8 allocated to AfriNIC (APR 2005). 73/8 allocated to ARIN (MAR 2005). hope it helps.

We have tables Users and Communities linked by has_an_belongs_to_many. The join table Communities_Users has additional fields [ is_active, is_blocked, join_date] etc. These are populated using @user.push_with_attributes(:is_active => true,...). Later on how do we update or retrieve the attributes in the link table for a given user or a community with doing it explicitly using SQL? Thanks,

> On Sat, 12 May 2018 01:17:02 -0600 > "Paul R. Ganci via samba" <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> Well I may have been over zealous and upgraded my Samba AD server to >> CentOS 7.5. After doing so the named service will not start. The >> error message I get is: >> >> May 12 00:50:55 nureyev named[11351]: Loading 'AD DNS Zone'