similar to: [LLVMdev] Passes ordering

Nehal Gandhi wrote: > Hi Nick > > I am not quite sure what you meant by verifier. I checked online documents > and found that there is a function verifyAnalysis() in Pass but it is empty. > So do you suggest implementing that function? If it is the case, what should > I look while implementing that function? Or something else altogether? I'm assuming you have a PassManager

So it looks like the verifier doesn't catch this condition - I think it should. The attached program reproduces the problem - verification succeeds, but the linker fails with a type assertion. BTW, if no one has the bandwidth to work on this I'm willing to attempt a fix, assuming that you agree that the verifier should discover this condition. Michael Muller wrote: > >

I may have found a bug in the andersends pass, but before I try to strip the code down to something reasonable I'd like to make sure I'm not misunderstanding anything. This is against the current SVN head, on my Mac OS 10.5 box. 1) I'm compiling a bunch of C++ code with llvm-g++ (4.0.1). The compiled code includes the gcc 4.0.1 implementation for dynamic_cast (so it can be

Hi Reid, Thanks for your help! I could detect the problem and the module now can be saved (it was a problem with some Alloca instructions). I could not find a "verify" method in the Module class, but just for the records, I did this: --------------- PassManager Passes; // Add an appropriate TargetData instance for this module... Passes.add(new TargetData("save",

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> The current memory model section ends with the following discussions: >> >> "Note that in cases where none of the atomic intrinsics are used, this >> model places only one restriction on

Hi, I'm experimenting with using LLVM to generate dynamic FFI bridges in VisualWorks Smalltalk. LLVM is an amazing thing! I'm going from dynamically generated assembler source to machine code, and I have that all working, copied from the llc tool and the JIT example. I have two questions: 1. What optimization passes, if any, should I run on the module before I pass it to the

On Nov 7, 2007, at 6:10 PM, Antony Blakey wrote: > Hi, > I'm experimenting with using LLVM to generate dynamic FFI bridges > in VisualWorks Smalltalk. LLVM is an amazing thing! I'm going from > dynamically generated assembler source to machine code, and I have > that all working, copied from the llc tool and the JIT example. I > have two questions: > > 1. What

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Mar 6, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > >> Hi llvm, >> >> 1) The lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp in 2.7 implements Verifier::VerifyType, >> which is empty in 2.6. I noticed that it does not check all types, >> for example, UnionTyID, OpaqueTyID, LabelTyID, MetadataTyID

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Sean Silva > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] What would cause instructions to NOT make it into the module? > It is a pass that can be run like any other pass. See createVerifierPass(). You can also just call verifyModule() with the appropriate parameters; it's defined in

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Jianzhou Zhao wrote: >> >> Hi llvm, >> >> 1) The lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp in 2.7 implements Verifier::VerifyType, >> which is empty in 2.6. I noticed that it does not check all types, >> for example, UnionTyID, OpaqueTyID, LabelTyID, MetadataTyID >> and etc are ignored in

Hi all, I was trying to implement an obfuscation tool for C-code on the basis of LLVM. I got a prototype of the simple obfuscation transformation which converting control flow graph to something like a state machine. I am not sure I will have time to work on extending further this tool with new transformations like opaque predicates and decided to put here source code I have by now with hope

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On 2015-Sep-02, at 19:31, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 01:10:42AM +0000, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:43 AM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < >>> dexonsmith at

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> In

Another quick question. In ./bindings/ocaml/Makefile.ocaml, the configurations when ENABLE_OPTIMIZED<>1 are commented, which set -g flag to $(OCAMLC). Is that for back-compatibility to support OCaml < 3.10.0? On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Erick Tryzelaar <idadesub at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at

Hi Nick I am not quite sure what you meant by verifier. I checked online documents and found that there is a function verifyAnalysis() in Pass but it is empty. So do you suggest implementing that function? If it is the case, what should I look while implementing that function? Or something else altogether? Thanks, Nehal. -----Original Message----- From: Nick Lewycky [mailto:nicholas at mxc.ca]

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> I noticed the patch was already merged into the current LLVM language >> reference manual with new memory instructions, fence, cmpxchg and >> atomicrmw. Will the instructions be available in LLVM

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Hi all, > > http://www.llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#BuildRecType suggests > us to define recursive types via opaque and refine. Since LLVM has > structural types, %rt = type { %rt* } and %rt1 = type { %rt* } should > be same structurally. I tested the following code, > > %rt =

Hi, I tried creating intrinsics which are to be placeholders for a set of instructions which should not be executed by the backend. I get the following verifier error. The "indvar.next4" instruction being mentioned in the step wise debug is not present in the LLVM IR (i.e IR before application of my transformation Pass). As seen below the operands of this instructions causing

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 2, 2012, at 9:42 PM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Chapter 4 in http://llvm.org/pubs/2005-05-04-LattnerPHDThesis.html >> compares the precision of alias analysis in LLVM at that time. Does >> the latest LLVM still follow the similar results? I was also

It is a pass that can be run like any other pass. See createVerifierPass(). -- Sean Silva On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Rick Mann <rmann at latencyzero.com> wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2013, at 21:47 , Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > >> Try running the verifier pass (the one that is invoked by `opt -verify`). > > I'm not sure how to do this. I'm