similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM - when to do a clean install?

So this was working fine for me until a few days ago when I checked out the most recent LLVM - the one with the new type system. Now I am getting the same error that I was getting previously. Is it possible that your fix got unfixed when they merged in the new branch? On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > Cool, I'll check it out - thanks! > >

Cool, I'll check it out - thanks! On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Talin <viridia at

Interestingly, I also get a similar error in a different executable (my unittest): pure virtual method called terminate called without an active exception 0 tartc 0x00000001010a8265 PrintStackTrace(void*) + 53 1 tartc 0x00000001010a88cc SignalHandler(int) + 364 2 libSystem.B.dylib 0x00007fff831341ba _sigtramp + 26 3 libSystem.B.dylib 0x7261742e65637365 _sigtramp +

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I recently updated my version of LLVM from revision 140108 to 142082, and >> several things broke, most of which were easily fixed. However, I'm now >> getting a "pure virtual method called"

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: >>> A couple of months ago, I started the process of updating my CMake scripts >>> to allow my compiler to be compiled

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > A couple of months ago, I started the process of updating my CMake scripts > to allow my compiler to be compiled with clang. I quickly ran into a problem > calling the LLVM libraries, which is that I would get segfaults when calling > LLVM API functions. I posted about this on both the clang and llvm-dev >

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: >> A couple of months ago, I started the process of updating my CMake scripts >> to allow my compiler to be compiled with clang. I quickly ran into a problem >> calling the LLVM libraries, which is that I would get

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > So this was working fine for me until a few days ago when I checked out the > most recent LLVM - the one with the new type system. Now I am getting the > same error that I was getting previously. > Is it possible that your fix got unfixed when they merged in the new branch? I wouldn't be surprised if

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: >> So this was working fine for me until a few days ago when I checked out the >> most recent LLVM - the one with the new type system. Now I am getting the >> same error that I was getting previously. >> Is it

A couple of months ago, I started the process of updating my CMake scripts to allow my compiler to be compiled with clang. I quickly ran into a problem calling the LLVM libraries, which is that I would get segfaults when calling LLVM API functions. I posted about this on both the clang and llvm-dev lists, but there was no response, so I decided to put the clang-related work on hold. Last week I

Sure. I think we can change the GC lowering pass to recognize all llvm.gcroot (not only the ones in the first block), and move them to the first block so that they are initialized by the pass later on. On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 12:59 PM, nicolas geoffray < > nicolas.geoffray at gmail.com> wrote: > >>

Jeffrey and I are working on future standard library functionality for hashing user defined types: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3333.html I would much rather have an interface that is close to or mirrors this one. We already have some field experience with it, and using it in LLVM and Clang would provide more. Also, it would be possible to essentially share code

Sorry, I meant DIBuilder. On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > I didn't know DIFactory existed until you mentioned it just now. > > And if folks are adding brand new classes to LLVM, can we not follow the > naming conventions in the developer guidelines? > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:51 AM, nicolas geoffray < nicolas.geoffray at gmail.com> wrote: > I didn't have unions in mind - indeed you need some kind of static > information in such a case. The GC infrastructure in LLVM having so little > love, I think it is good if you can improve it in any ways, as well as > defining new interfaces. So the patch is OK then? All it does

Hi Talin, This looks interesting..! Can you email me your tool? Cheers, Raghu. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Renato Golin" <rengolin at systemcall.org> To: "Talin" <viridia at gmail.com> Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 1:31:10 AM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Introducing LLBrowse: A

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 12:59 PM, nicolas geoffray < nicolas.geoffray at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Talin, > > You are not doing something wrong, it is just that the LLVM optimizers > consider llvm.gcroot like a regular function call. The alloca is moved in > the first block most probably because the inliner anticipates another > optimization pass (the mem2reg). > OK, well,

I didn't have unions in mind - indeed you need some kind of static information in such a case. The GC infrastructure in LLVM having so little love, I think it is good if you can improve it in any ways, as well as defining new interfaces. Cheers, Nicolas On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 1:04 AM, nicolas geoffray < >

I'm still working on the next patch, it's going somewhat slowly. I wanted to create a unit test that actually created a union, and in order to do that I had to implement constant unions. And rather than creating a special syntax for constructing a union, I decided that it was simplest to implement the insertvalue instruction for a constant union expression: @foo = constant union {

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Devang Patel <devang.patel at gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I recently started getting this error when I try to debug my >>> LLVM-compiled program in GDB:

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Devang Patel <devang.patel at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I