similar to: [LLVMdev] "Not all catch info was assigned to a landing pad!"' failed

Hi Kostya, > My transformation phase inserts an if-the-else construct into a BB. > If that BB contains llvm.eh.exception, I get an Assertion at some later point: > > lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/FunctionLoweringInfo.cpp:212: > void llvm::FunctionLoweringInfo::clear(): Assertion `CatchInfoFound.size() == > CatchInfoLost.size() && "Not all catch info was assigned to a

I'm getting a very stubborn assertion failure that I don't understand. After I insert a call to an externally defined function into an invoked function, llc spits out the following assertion failure when I compile the bytecode: llc: SelectionDAGISel.cpp:4912: virtual bool llvm::SelectionDAGISel::runOnFunction(llvm::Function&): Assertion `FuncInfo.CatchInfoFound.size() ==

All, I'm looking at the lowerinvoke pass as a starting point for getting SJLJ based exception handling working on ARM, but am having some troubles with it. When I run a simple testcase (attached) through llc and specify -enable-correct-eh-support, llc asserts on me. It appears there's been some bitrot somewhere. SelectDAGBuild and SelectionDAGISel cooperate to track landing pads

Hi Jim, > I'm looking at the lowerinvoke pass as a starting point for getting > SJLJ based exception handling working on ARM, but am having some > troubles with it. When I run a simple testcase (attached) through llc > and specify -enable-correct-eh-support, llc asserts on me. It appears > there's been some bitrot somewhere. SelectDAGBuild and >

On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > All, > > I'm looking at the lowerinvoke pass as a starting point for getting > SJLJ based exception handling working on ARM, but am having some > troubles with it. When I run a simple testcase (attached) through > llc and specify -enable-correct-eh-support, llc asserts on me. It > appears there's been some

Here it is: llc: SelectionDAGISel.cpp:358: virtual bool llvm::SelectionDAGISel::runOnMachineFunction(llvm::MachineFunction&): Assertion `FuncInfo->CatchInfoFound.size() == FuncInfo->CatchInfoLost.size() && "Not all catch info was assigned to a landing pad!"' failed. 0 libLLVM-2.7.so 0x0140e2c8 Stack dump: 0. Program arguments: llc -O0 bullet.linked.bc.opt 1.

Hi, I'm trying to compile an llvm program which makes use of exception handling. While compiling the code with llc i get the following assertion failure llc: FunctionLoweringInfo.cpp:163: void llvm::FunctionLoweringInfo::clear(): Assertion `CatchInfoFound.size() == CatchInfoLost.size() && "Not all catch info was assigned to a landing pad!"' failed. 0 llc

> On Aug 3, 2015, at 10:24 AM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: > > Hey Tom, > > I’m not a regular user of llvm-config, but this sounds completely right to me, and it would be a significant improvement over what we have now. > > The only question I want to raise is, what about NDEBUG? There are headers that conditionalize on NDEBUG, which could lead to ABI

I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm However, I am getting the following assertion failure in llc. The bytecode has been processed with opt, it passes opt bytecode verification. I'm not too familiar with backend code generation. Does anyone have any insight in to what the problem might be or how to go about

Hi all, I am writing a llvm backend for a small stream processor. Because of its special application field, the processor does not support function. When I built the llvm backend for the new target, I leave the calling convention and frame lowering part blank. It compilered correctly, but I encountered execution errors, like *[xxx at localhost ex]$ llc test.ll -march=SSP -o test.s 0 llc

Hi Ryan, On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 13:34 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: > > llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm > > However, I am getting the following assertion failure in llc. The > bytecode has been processed with opt, it passes opt bytecode > verification. I'm not too familiar with backend

Is a PR a bug report on the bugzilla database? I am also running bugpoint to see if that yields anything. Reid Spencer wrote: > Hi Ryan, > > On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 13:34 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > >>I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: >> >>llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm >> >>However, I am getting the

Hi, > Today I've been trying to debug a weird bug that makes JIT crash with > certain code and when using the inliner. This may sound weird, but if I > disable the inliner, it doesn't crash. > I include an example gdb dump below. Does something looks wrong? Do you > think it's a bug in JIT or it's just some other piece of code that is > writing on the JIT

>> Today I've been trying to debug a weird bug that makes JIT crash with >> certain code and when using the inliner. This may sound weird, but if I >> disable the inliner, it doesn't crash. >> I include an example gdb dump below. Does something looks wrong? Do you >> think it's a bug in JIT or it's just some other piece of code that is >> writing

Hi all, I've been investigating a machine verifier failure on the attached testcase, and I'm tempted to say the verifier is wrong and should accept it. Skip the description for the proposed change. On AArch64, the verifier complains with: *** Bad machine code: MBB exits via unconditional branch but doesn't have exactly one CFG successor! *** - function: t4 - basic

Hi, I'm trying to compile the basicmath benchmark from the MiBench suite to the MIPS target. However, when I call llc with the linked llvm bitcode, the compilation gives an error apparently related to some unsupported feature. The same error occurs when I select -march=arm, but it works for X86. In details: Commands I used to compile basicmath: clang -static -O3 basicmath_small.c rad2deg.c

On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 14:27 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > Is a PR a bug report on the bugzilla database? Yes, so named because of the URL translation. I.e. http://llvm.org/PR123 takes you to bugzilla bug 123. PR == Problem Report. > I am also running > bugpoint to see if that yields anything. Okay, good. That might turn up something useful. If you suspect its a bug, please file

Hi, Today I've been trying to debug a weird bug that makes JIT crash with certain code and when using the inliner. This may sound weird, but if I disable the inliner, it doesn't crash. I include an example gdb dump below. Does something looks wrong? Do you think it's a bug in JIT or it's just some other piece of code that is writing on the JIT memory?.. I don't really know

HI, When compiling the open-source software cryptopp (https://www.cryptopp.com/#download <https://www.cryptopp.com/#download>) version 5.6.4 I found a strange issue with the IR generated. The issue only appears when compiling with -O2 optimisation in the integer.cpp file (the function is _ZN8CryptoPPrsERNSt3__113basic_istreamIcNS0_11char_traitsIcEEEERNS_7IntegerE ->

Hello all, I am a LLVM newer who want to add a new backend(EBC) into LLVM. After coping the related files from another target and modifying it, I meet a problem when I build the project. The error message is as follows: ================================================================ [ 94%] Built target llvm-dis Linking CXX executable ../../bin/llvm-mc Undefined symbols: