similar to: [LLVMdev] getGlobalContext()

Can anyone help with these crazy linking errors?? /home/kgibbs/CS321/CVS/llvm/lib/Debug/vmcore.o(.gnu.linkonce.t._ZN4llvm12Lea kDetector16addGarbageObjectEPKNS_5ValueE+0xd): In function `llvm::LeakDetector::addGarbageObject(llvm::Value const*)': /usr/include/c++/3.2.1/bits/stl_pair.h:148: undefined reference to `llvm::LeakDetector::addGarbageObjectImpl(llvm::Value const*)'

You'll need to include the "support" library to resolve these LeakDetector symbols. You can do this by either placing the path to "support.o" or -lsupport on your link line (in your Makefile). Note that if you use the -l option, you'll likely need to use -L<path> as well to tell the linker where to find "libsupport.a" (file included by the

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Reid Spencer wrote: > I have a "first version" of Stacker up and running. Structurally its a > lot like llvm-as. When I run it, I get: > Leaked objects found: after running pass 'Function Pass Manager' > LLVM Value subclasses leaked: This is coming from the LLVM "LeakDetector" stuff. The idea is that you are not supposed to create

Ok that works but why on earth would I get a runtime error of: Type.cpp:132: const llvm::Type* llvm::Type::getForwardedTypeInternal() const: Assertion `ForwardType && "This type is not being forwarded to another type!"' failed. Aborted For the line of code: MyModule = new Module( std::string("IDontWork")); > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-admin

Hi, Probably some of the leaks Valgrind reports are spurious, but the numbers seem to be significant enough to demand some attention: ==10132== LEAK SUMMARY: ==10132== definitely lost: 15,624 bytes in 558 blocks. ==10132== indirectly lost: 44,548 bytes in 1,591 blocks. ==10132== possibly lost: 37,576 bytes in 98 blocks. ==10132== still reachable: 1,336,876 bytes in 1,364 blocks.

I committed: r224058 = 966942da9e68b59c31ce770e7f94c55a63482c6b r224060 = da75f7277e3a129aed8ef8aa4e0d84de40b76fd4 r224061 = f88e4c8e9171045454b2c8e05054c2af8da3fe4f Let me know if somehow you're still hitting the problem. r224061 removes leak detection entirely from `MachineInstr`. There aren't any leaks to be had there, since they're allocated in a custom allocator. They're

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 05:27:45PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: > +zalman at google.com > Hi Duncan, This patch plus another small change fixes the assertion failure for me. With the patch alone, the void* overload of addGarbageObject() was being used by MDNode::getTemporary(), so I had to cast the object as an MDNode*: diff --git a/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp b/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp

> On 2014 Dec 10, at 14:08, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:21:08AM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >> >>> On 2014 Dec 10, at 08:40, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:22:16PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >>>> The `Metadata`/`Value`

Hi Chris, >> In my code generator, I need to prepare a block and add instructions to it, then insert this block in a function defined later (that is I cannot create the function at the beginning stage become some info are not available yet). I tried to create a block without any "parent" (BasicBlock::Create(getGlobalContext(), "init"), fill it, but how to link it with

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'd like to add a pragma support in llvm. I am thinking about using a llvm intrinsic to represent each pragma, such as llvm.pragma (metadata, ...) where metadata describes a pragma. So if an application has: #pragma p1 .. #pragma p2... for (...) The llvm IR would be llvm.pragma (metadata..) // for p1 llvm.pragma (metadata..) // for p2 llvm IR for "for

On 3/21/11 2:00 PM, Damien Vincent wrote: > I reply to myself... I didn't go in the right direction in my previous > email. > > There is an easy way to tell if a GlobalValue corresponds to data or code: > const GlobalValue *GV; > if(Function::classof(GV)) > ... // process the global value as a function > else > ... // process the global value as data > >

I have a "first version" of Stacker up and running. Structurally its a lot like llvm-as. When I run it, I get: Leaked objects found: after running pass 'Function Pass Manager' LLVM Value subclasses leaked: Note that the supposed list of "LLVM Value subclasses leaked" is empty. Its followed up by a SIGSEGV at AsmWriter.cpp:754 presumably because I have a BasicBlock

Hi Chris, Thanks. I will see what I can do for this. Junjie On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 19, 2010, at 2:38 PM, Junjie Gu wrote: > >> Many compilers support per-loop pragma, such as loop unrolling (ie >> #pragma unroll=2).  Is there any LLVM project/effort going on >> in this area ? What is the expected

Using Valgrind hasn't shown me anything terribly unusual. And I'm confused because its not even trying to delete a real instruction; deleting a void type with no name? That doesn't make any sense... Any other hints? I've seen a few posts in the past about this relating to some internal LLVM bugs... -Griffin On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:26:41 +0100, Duncan Sands <baldrick at

Hi Griffin, did your pass create a data structure that holds values somehow, and forgot to delete it? Also, try running under valgrind in case this is due to a memory error of some kind. Ciao, Duncan. > So I have an LLVM pass that appears to run completely and work fine, and > then it aborts at the very end. When exiting the final runOnFunction call, > I get the following error /

Yes, it is a pass. Here is a very general overview of the file structure as far as the AA is concerned. LLVM is not my strong-suit, I do hardware simulators, not compilers. using namespace llvm; char RelRecovery::ID = 0; static RegisterPass<RelRecovery> X("relRecovery", "Reliability transformation for lightweight recovery"); void

Thanks for comments/suggestions. Yes, attaching metadata to instructions will be good choices for many cases. But for loops, attaching metadata to back-edges requires that the front end to build loops, which is an additional task for the front end. And this task is really a backend's job, not the front end's. If the only concern is that it is hard for pragma intrinsics to stay with their

Hey everyone, So I have an LLVM pass that appears to run completely and work fine, and then it aborts at the very end. When exiting the final runOnFunction call, I get the following error / stack dump. I cannot figure out why this is happening for the life of me - does anyone have any ideas? I'm not trying to do any crazy deallocation or anything, it just seems like a normal pass to me.

Hello all, I am working with someone else's LLVM code, which is about 8 months old. Part of this pass involves AliasAnalysis, and I'm getting the above assertion when the pass completes. The dump is as follows: -------------------------------- Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. 0xf7fdf430 in __kernel_vsyscall () (gdb) bt #0 0xf7fdf430 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xf602e921 in