similar to: [LLVMdev] Missing metadata for volatile variables

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 500 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Missing metadata for volatile variables"

2012 Jan 23
2
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in the dragonegg
Hi Duncan, >> #include<stdio.h> >> #include<string.h> >> >> int main(int argc, char** argv){ >> >> char a[8] = "aaaaaaa"; >> char b[8] = "bbbbbbb"; >> >> char *c = (char*) malloc(sizeof(char)*(strlen(a)+strlen(b)+1)); >> memcpy(c, a, strlen(a)); >> memcpy(c + strlen(a), b, strlen(b) + 1); >>
2012 Jan 24
0
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in the dragonegg
Hi Pablo, I can reproduce this with the supplied IR. It is related to the use of __memcpy_chk. As far as I can see it is a bug in lli or the LLVM code generators. Can you please open a bugreport, attaching the LLVM IR. Ciao, Duncan. On 23/01/12 17:00, Pablo Barrio wrote: > Hi Duncan, >>> #include<stdio.h> >>> #include<string.h> >>> >>> int
2012 Jan 24
1
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in the dragonegg
Hi Pablo, in fact this is coming from the "ssp" attribute on main, which turns on LLVM's stack protection logic. I have no idea what that does exactly, but it seems to be causing the problem. On ubuntu systems it is enabled by default. You can turn it off by passing -fno-stack-protector to dragonegg. However please still open a bugreport since stack protection is supposed to work.
2012 Jan 23
0
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in the dragonegg
Hi Pablo, > I came across something that seems to be a bug in the dragonegg option that > emits LLVM IR. ¿Can anybody reproduce the error, or see what's wrong? I can't reproduce this on x86-64 linux with latest LLVM+dragonegg+gcc-4.6. ¿Should I > post it somewhere else in case it's really a bug? Thanks ahead! > > With this simple program: > * > #include
2012 Jan 23
2
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in the dragonegg
Hi all, I came across something that seems to be a bug in the dragonegg option that emits LLVM IR. ¿Can anybody reproduce the error, or see what's wrong? ¿Should I post it somewhere else in case it's really a bug? Thanks ahead! With this simple program: * #include <stdio.h> #include <string.h> int main(int argc, char** argv){ char a[8] = "aaaaaaa";
2012 Mar 02
2
[LLVMdev] Question on debug information
Hi all, I'm using my own front-end to generate following code .ll file targeting x86 32-bit: ; ModuleID = 'check.c' target datalayout = "e-p:32:32:32-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:32:64-f32:32:32-f64:32:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-f80:32:32-n8:16:32" target triple = "i386-pc-linux-gnu" @.str581 = internal constant [52 x i8] c"---- test number %d
2011 Apr 30
2
[LLVMdev] DWARF not being generated for local variable, though MD looks right(?)
I'm running into a problem with generating debugging information that I'm not sure how to debug; I'd be happy to have some suggestions about where to start digging in. In short, I believe that I'm correctly generating debug info (with DIBuilder, which has so far been quite nice!), and a scan of the meta-data in the IR looks generally right. However, if I run dwarfdump on my
2012 Mar 06
0
[LLVMdev] Question on debug information
Hi all, Anyone have ideas/info on this topic ? Thanks Seb 2012/3/2 Seb <babslachem at gmail.com> > Hi all, > > I'm using my own front-end to generate following code .ll file targeting > x86 32-bit: > > ; ModuleID = 'check.c' > target datalayout = >
2012 Mar 06
2
[LLVMdev] Question on debug information
On Mar 6, 2012, at 5:31 AM, Seb <babslachem at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Anyone have ideas/info on this topic ? > Thanks > Seb > > 2012/3/2 Seb <babslachem at gmail.com> > Hi all, > > I'm using my own front-end to generate following code .ll file targeting x86 32-bit: > > ; ModuleID = 'check.c' > target datalayout =
2012 Mar 07
0
[LLVMdev] Question on debug information
Hi Jim, Thanks for the advice. Since I'm using LLVM 2.9 style of debug information. Will this code benefit from those improvement or should I generate LLVM 3.0 style of debug information ? Best Regards Seb 2012/3/6 Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> > > On Mar 6, 2012, at 5:31 AM, Seb <babslachem at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Anyone have ideas/info on
2011 Jul 15
2
[LLVMdev] Missing optimization in constant propagation?
Hi all, I stumbled across a peculiarity regarding constant propagation that I don't understand. I'm not sure, if I oversee anything or if it's a missing feature. I have created the following simple test function in C: int times_zero(int a) { return (a * 0); } Compiling this with GCC using dragonegg generates the following code: %int = type i32 define i32 @times_zero(i32 %a)
2011 Jul 15
0
[LLVMdev] Missing optimization in constant propagation?
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Martin Apel <martin.apel at simpack.de> wrote: > Hi all, > > I stumbled across a peculiarity regarding constant propagation that I don't understand. I'm not sure, if I oversee anything or if it's a missing feature. > > I have created the following simple test function in C: > > int times_zero(int a) > { >  return (a *
2011 May 02
0
[LLVMdev] DWARF not being generated for local variable, though MD looks right(?)
On Apr 29, 2011, at 5:49 PM, Matt Pharr wrote: > I'm running into a problem with generating debugging information that I'm not sure how to debug; I'd be happy to have some suggestions about where to start digging in. > > In short, I believe that I'm correctly generating debug info (with DIBuilder, which has so far been quite nice!), and a scan of the meta-data in the IR
2012 Feb 29
4
[LLVMdev] Recovering variable names from bitcode
Hello, I have been facing a few problems getting names of variables from the bitcode. The bitcode does contain debug metadata. The first problem is regarding `memtmp' variables (apparently, the original variable name is no longer present in the bitcode). The other two problems concern OpenMP. In one case, the instruction is not named and hence establishing a connection to the debug metadata
2011 Dec 15
2
[LLVMdev] LLVM 2.9 metadata
Hi all, In LLVM documentation about source level debugging (http://www.llvm.org/releases/2.9/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html) Subprogram descriptor is defined as: !2 = metadata !{ i32, ;; Tag = 46 + LLVMDebugVersion <http://www.llvm.org/releases/2.9/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html#LLVMDebugVersion> ;; (DW_TAG_subprogram) i32, ;; Unused field. metadata, ;;
2010 Dec 01
8
[LLVMdev] Alternative exception handling proposal
Here is an alternative proposal to Bill's. It is closer to what we already have (which can be seen as a good or a bad thing!), and is also closer to what gcc does. It is more incremental than Bill's and introduces fewer new concepts. Executive summary ----------------- Remove the personality and list of catches out of eh.selector and stick them directly on invoke instructions. The
2011 Dec 15
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM 2.9 metadata
On Dec 15, 2011, at 2:32 AM, Seb wrote: > Hi all, > > In LLVM documentation about source level debugging (http://www.llvm.org/releases/2.9/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html) > > > Subprogram descriptor is defined as: > > !2 = metadata !{ > i32, ;; Tag = 46 + LLVMDebugVersion > ;; (DW_TAG_subprogram) > > i32, ;; Unused field. >
2011 Dec 16
2
[LLVMdev] LLVM 2.9 metadata
Hi Devang, Not only "vtable ptr" is a problem, for this field it seems that CLANG emits a NULL metadata node which is translated into 'i32 0'. The other problem is for 'isArtificial' field with is described as being of type i1 and CLANG emits i32. Looking at sources, it seems that it should be a i32 flag field. Hope this helps, Best Regards Seb 2011/12/15 Devang
2012 Feb 29
0
[LLVMdev] Recovering variable names from bitcode
On Feb 29, 2012, at 2:59 PM, Ashay Rane wrote: > I have been facing a few problems getting names of variables from the bitcode. The bitcode does contain debug metadata. The first problem is regarding `memtmp' variables (apparently, the original variable name is no longer present in the bitcode). The other two problems concern OpenMP. In one case, the instruction is not named and hence
2012 Jan 16
2
[LLVMdev] Need more information on llvm.dbg.value call
Hi all, I'm using clang + LLVM 2.9. Let's consider following code sample: extern void bar(int x) ; void foo(int y) { bar(y) ; } When compiled with clang at -O2 -g I've got following LLVM file: ; ModuleID = 'localvar.c' target datalayout =