similar to: [LLVMdev] Erasing Instruction

Dear developers: When I am doing basicblock pass, I meet a bug: there is an iterator "I" in a basicblock, and it is not pointing to the first instruction in this basicblock. However, "I--;" will fail by an assertion. The basic block ("I" is pointing to the second instruction) in test.ll: bb: ; preds = %bb1 %1 = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* noalias

I get the following error when I try to run arm lli on QEMU: lli: llvm-arm/src/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/ilist.h:197: typename bidirectional_iterator<NodeTy, int>::reference llvm::ilist_iterator<NodeTy>::operator*() const [with NodeTy = llvm::RecyclerStruct]: Assertion `Traits::getNext(NodePtr) != 0 && "Dereferencing end()!"' failed. 0 lli 0x006abbfc Stack dump: 0.

AAAH! I see you are still at 2.5. Then this patch (the fix) is relevant for you: <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/ADT/ ilist.h?r1=66061&r2=68785&diff_format=h> Cheers, Gabor On 27 Sep., 05:45, hc2... at columbia.edu wrote: > Dear developers: >      When I am doing basicblock pass, I meet a bug: there is an   > iterator "I" in

On 27 Sep., 05:45, hc2... at columbia.edu wrote: > Dear developers: >      When I am doing basicblock pass, I meet a bug: there is an   > iterator "I" in a basicblock, and it is not pointing to the first   > instruction in this basicblock. However, "I--;" will fail by an   > assertion. Hi hc! are you on SVN trunk? Cheers, Gabor > > The basic block

hannibal hannibal wrote: > I get the following error when I try to run arm lli on QEMU: > > lli: llvm-arm/src/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/ilist.h:197: typename bidirectional_iterator<NodeTy, int>::reference llvm::ilist_iterator<NodeTy>::operator*() const [with NodeTy = llvm::RecyclerStruct]: Assertion `Traits::getNext(NodePtr) != 0 && "Dereferencing end()!"'

"Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: >> On 2015-Oct-20, at 11:23, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >> >> I think the implicit iterator conversions are much less important >> now that we have range based for loops, but I still like having >> them. > > IMO, if a developer has an ilist iterator

Hi All, I have just started using LLVM . i am facing a issue while using ilist container. Here is a struct with ilist container as its one element. typedef ilist<Instruction *> InstListType; struct list_node { int Impact; InstListType InstList; }; list_node

I think the implicit iterator conversions are much less important now that we have range based for loops, but I still like having them. On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 2015-Oct-07, at 17:57, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> > wrote: > > > > I've been

I am using LLVM 2.6 and I have a question on the use of the BasicBlock::iterator to hoist loop invariant instructions to the loop preheader. When I process the instructions backward as shown in the following code, I got the following error right after the "hoist(I)" is done. Can anyone advise whether I am misusing BasicBlock::iterator? /opt/llvms/src/llvm_26/

Quoting Gabor Greif <ggreif at gmail.com>: Hi Gabor, I can not open the link, can you send again? > AAAH! > > I see you are still at 2.5. Then this patch (the fix) > is relevant for you: > > <http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/ADT/ > ilist.h?r1=66061&r2=68785&diff_format=h> > > Cheers, > > Gabor > > >

Hi, This is probably more of a standard C++ question instead of an actual LLVM question, but here it goes anyway. I'm trying to invoke the following constructor: CallInst::CallInst(Value *Func, InputIterator ArgBegin, InputIterator ArgEnd, const Twine &NameStr, BasicBlock *InsertAtEnd); My code is: using namespace llvm; void replaceByClone(Function *f, CallInst *I){ Function *clone =

Hi llvm-devel, I have migrated my codebase from llvm-3.6 to llvm 3.8.1-stable. Although I was able to resolve most of the problems, I am facing issues resolving the following: To insert an instruction immediately after the first instruction within a basic block, I first get all instructions in my basic block in an instruction container list. Once that is done, I insert my new instruction in the

Hi all, I am in the process of developing a installer utility for ARM target which can compile any source files to ARM native executable. This installer utility should be present on target itself (whether this is feasible or not?). For achieving this i compiled llvm with clang for target. I copied the binaries to target and when it tried to compile a sample c code i am getting the following

On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 05:24:12PM +1000, Emil Mikulic wrote: > http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~emil/llvm2.1-check-debug.txt Here's an ARM test that cores: $ llvm-as < /home/emil/ll/llvm-2.1/test/CodeGen/ARM/2007-01-19-InfiniteLoop.ll | llc -march=arm -mattr=+v6,+vfp2 Segmentation fault (core dumped) $ gdb `which llc` llc.core [...] (gdb) where #0 0x0853d606 in

Please keep replies on the list. Now you've missed "InputIterator must be a random-access iterator pointing to contiguous storage (e.g. a std::vector<>::iterator). Checks are made for random-accessness but not for contiguous storage as that would incur runtime overhead." from CallInst's constructor (although that comment should be on Create()). Function::arg_iterator

> On 2016-Jul-11, at 09:05, Ulrich Weigand <ulrich.weigand at de.ibm.com> wrote: > > uweigand accepted this revision. > uweigand added a comment. > This revision is now accepted and ready to land. > > I'll defer to your expertise on that. Patch looks good to me. > > I guess I'm not fully familiar with some of the C++ language details here. Would you

Is this the same issue as PR1686? If so, please add to it. What kind of host machine are you using? Thanks, Evan On Sep 19, 2007, at 12:45 AM, Emil Mikulic wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 05:24:12PM +1000, Emil Mikulic wrote: >> http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~emil/llvm2.1-check-debug.txt > > Here's an ARM test that cores: > > $ llvm-as <

On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:41:38PM +1000, Emil Mikulic wrote: > The "make check" produced: > === Summary === > > # of expected passes 2209 > # of unexpected failures 41 > # of expected failures 5 > gmake[1]: *** [check-local] Error 1 > gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/home/emil/ll/objdir-llvm/test' > gmake: ***

Hi, I could not figure out, how to declare a Pass*. Can anyone give me an example, how to use SplitEdge() function ? Please help me out. Regards, Chayan On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Chayan Sarkar <chayan.ju at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > Still I could not figure out how to use Pass* while calling > SplitEdge() function. Can anyone provide me some example? > >

Dear all, The below has been tested quite thoroughly by now, including performance-testing by the way of using a modified compiler that triggers the below while compiling at least an old part of LLVM ["Function.cpp"] and sorting a symbol table with >7000 global variables. Unfortunately, the optimization I have been working on for which I _thought_ I needed the ability to sort a