similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm-dis fails to parse bytecode emitted by clang

Hi, For the first problem, try clang -S -emit-llvm test.c -o test.ll you should get the llvm IR and you don't need to use llvm-dis. Although I have tried your example with the exact commands and source code you posted and it worked just fine for me. I also use clang and LLVM 2.8 compiled from sources. For the second problem, suppress -emit-llvm, since you want the executable, not an object

Thanks to everyone for the quick replies! I spent some time looking into the issue. It turns out that llvm-dis crashes on CLANG-generated bytecode if LLVM is compiled for a 64-bit architecture. The problem disappears when compiling for a 32-bit architecture. Should I file a bug report? Lorenzo On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Xinfinity <xinfinity_a at yahoo.com> wrote: > > Hi, >

Hi,all I tried to run the generated whole-program bitcode of BIND,but I got some information: 0 lli 0x0000000000feda16 1 lli 0x0000000000fed88f 2 libpthread.so.0 0x0000003df340eee0 3 libc.so.6 0x0000003df28332f5 gsignal + 53 4 libc.so.6 0x0000003df2834b20 abort + 384 5 libc.so.6 0x0000003df282c2fa __assert_fail + 234 6 lli

I am hitting an LLVM assertion from the llc tool iff the bitcode file is optimized at -O3 level by opt). -O1 and -O2 levels of opt do not cause this assert. LLVM version 3.4svn DEBUG build with assertions. Built Jul 14 2013 (15:39:08). Default target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Host CPU: amdfam10 I have attached the input bc file before -O3 optimization :bzip2.del.bc.tgz I have attached

Hi Hal, I have filed http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16780 -Milind On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Milind, > > Have you filed a bug on this? If not, can you please open a bug report (http://llvm.org/bugs)? > > -Hal > > ----- Original Message ----- >> I am hitting an LLVM assertion from the llc tool iff the bitcode

Milind, Have you filed a bug on this? If not, can you please open a bug report (http://llvm.org/bugs)? -Hal ----- Original Message ----- > I am hitting an LLVM assertion from the llc tool iff the bitcode file > is optimized at -O3 level by opt). -O1 and -O2 levels of opt do not > cause this assert. > > LLVM version 3.4svn > DEBUG build with assertions. > Built Jul 14

Hi all, I've been looking into how to make llvm bitcode files smaller. There is one simple change that appears to shrink linked bitcode files by about 15%. See this spreadsheet for some rough data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjRrJHQc4_bddEtJdjdIek5fMDdIdFFIZldZXzdWa0E The change is in how operand ids are encoded in bitcode files. Rather than use an "absolute

Hi Jan, > I've been looking into how to make llvm bitcode files smaller. There is one > simple change that appears to shrink linked bitcode files by about 15%. See > this spreadsheet for some rough data: > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjRrJHQc4_bddEtJdjdIek5fMDdIdFFIZldZXzdWa0E the improvement is wonderful! ... > In any case, the patch is attached if

Hi, I don't see the LLVM bug I filed (http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16780) making any progress. Can someone suggest me whether the bug is in the correct state? -Milind On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Milind Chabbi <Milind.Chabbi at rice.edu> wrote: > Hi Hal, > > I have filed http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16780 > > -Milind > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at

Hi, On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Nan Zhu <zhunansjtu at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi,all > > I tried to run the generated whole-program bitcode of BIND,but I got some > information: > > 0   lli             0x0000000000feda16 > 1   lli             0x0000000000fed88f > 2   libpthread.so.0 0x0000003df340eee0 > 3   libc.so.6       0x0000003df28332f5 gsignal + 53 >

Mahadevan R wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Nan Zhu <zhunansjtu at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi,all >> >> I tried to run the generated whole-program bitcode of BIND,but I got some >> information: >> >> 0 lli 0x0000000000feda16 >> 1 lli 0x0000000000fed88f >> 2 libpthread.so.0

On Nov 8, 2012, at 3:31 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Joe, > >> We have a tool which reads in bitcode, processes it, and re-emits it. We use >> this tool as a flexible way to integrate our tool into the Xcode, Android NDK, >> Chromium, and Linux build process. >> >> The problem we face is that bitcode changes, and when it does…

Hi Lorenzo, > Thanks to everyone for the quick replies! I spent some time looking > into the issue. It turns out that llvm-dis crashes on CLANG-generated > bytecode if LLVM is compiled for a 64-bit architecture. The problem > disappears when compiling for a 32-bit architecture. Should I file a > bug report? it still sounds like LLVM is being miscompiled to me. What compiler did

Hi all, I have reported more than enough about the space savings achieved and the associated costs, here comes the current patch for review. Since this one is substantially smaller than the previous one, I did not cut it in pieces. The front part is about headers and the rest the .cpp and other files. Cheers, Gabor -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified

Hello, We have a tool which reads in bitcode, processes it, and re-emits it. We use this tool as a flexible way to integrate our tool into the Xcode, Android NDK, Chromium, and Linux build process. The problem we face is that bitcode changes, and when it does… future versions can read it, but past versions are left in the lurch. For instance LLVM 3.2svn can BitcodeReader from LLVM 3.1, but

On Apr 29, 2008, at 1:27 AM, Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi all, > > I have reported more than enough about the space savings achieved > and the associated costs, here comes the current patch for review. > > Since this one is substantially smaller than the previous one, I did > not cut it in pieces. The front part is about headers and the rest > the .cpp and other files. Hi

Hi Joe, > We have a tool which reads in bitcode, processes it, and re-emits it. We use > this tool as a flexible way to integrate our tool into the Xcode, Android NDK, > Chromium, and Linux build process. > > The problem we face is that bitcode changes, and when it does… future versions > can read it, but past versions are left in the lurch. For instance LLVM 3.2svn > can

On Nov 8, 2012, at 7:09 AM, Joe Abbey <jabbey at arxan.com> wrote: >>> The problem we face is that bitcode changes, and when it does… future versions >>> can read it, but past versions are left in the lurch. For instance LLVM 3.2svn >>> can BitcodeReader from LLVM 3.1, but LLVM 3.1 can't BitcodeReader LLVM 3.2 >>> (after r165739.) There was an

Oh I just see that there were already a bunch of answers. I missed the thread, sorry. So basically my intuitive approach on this is close to what I perceive Peter's position is: - don't create a new format if there is already one. - if you really have a good reason to create a new format, it should replace the existing one (i.e. don't maintain two). - ideally we should be able to

On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 8:33 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Oh I just see that there were already a bunch of answers. I missed the >> thread, sorry. >> >> So basically my intuitive approach on this is close to what I perceive