similar to: [LLVMdev] Jumping to a fixed address in Clang

Hi all: Unable to install libvirt v5.5.0 correctly through the source code which clone from git. The error message is shown below. libtool: install: (cd /home/libvirt/src; /bin/sh /home/libvirt/libtool --silent --tag CC --mode=relink gcc -std=gnu99 -I/usr/include/libxml2 -fno-common -W -Waddress -Waggressive-loop-optimizations -Wall -Wattributes -Wbad-function-cast -Wbuiltin-macro-redefined

Hi LLVM-Devs, I have managed to complete updating our sources from LLVM v4.0 to v5.0, but I am getting selection errors for 'callseq_end'. I am aware that the 'ADJCALLSTACKUP' and 'ADJCALLSTACKDOWN' patterns have changed, and have added an additional argument to the TD descriptions for these. There are interactions with 'ISD::CALL' and 'ISD::RET_FLAG',

Hello I apologize in advance for my English. I compiled the new version of libvirt 1.2.8 on an environment Development Linux from Scratch with the following configure: configure: Configuration summary configure: ===================== configure: configure: Drivers configure: configure: Xen: no configure: QEMU: yes configure: UML: yes configure: OpenVZ: no configure: VMware:

Thanks Guido, unfortunately no luck: root@<server>:~/debian# grep DEB_CONFIGURE_EXTRA_ARGS * grep: apparmor: Is a directory grep: patches: Is a directory grep: source: Is a directory root@<server>:~/debian# root@<server>:~/debian# root@<server>:~/debian# root@<server>:~/debian# grep DEB_CONFIGURE_EXTRA_ARGS */* root@<server>:~/debian#

+ cfe-dev > On Mar 28, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Harlan Haskins via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Recently I’ve noticed in coverage profiles that llvm_unreachable and the like are considered uncovered because there’s no special behavior in instrumentation to ‘ignore’ noreturn paths. FWIW, Daniel Dunbar and a few others have brought up the lack of a

Hi, Building the following C code I get a call instruction that has no noreturn attribute, while the function itself does have it. void foo(void **b) { __builtin_longjmp(b, 1); } define void @_Z3fooPPv(i8** %b) noreturn nounwind uwtable { entry: %0 = bitcast i8** %b to i8* tail call void @llvm.eh.sjlj.longjmp(i8* %0)

Dear all, I don't get how llvm handles functions with __attribute__((noreturn)). It seems that LR register is backed up on the stack whilst it will never be used to return from a 'noreturn' function. I have this problem with a home-made backend but it seems that ARM flavour of clang has same behaviour. By the way, SP is also saved, I don't understand why. Is there a syntax error

You can use CallInst::hasFnAttr(). It checks for attributes in the instruction and in the function decl. http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/Instructions_8cpp_source.html#l00345 Nuno ----- Original Message ----- > Hi, > > Building the following C code I get a call instruction that has no > noreturn > attribute, while the function itself does have it. > > void foo(void **b)

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:03 AM Wei Wang <weiwangcloud2020@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:58 PM Ján Tomko <jtomko@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On a Thursday in 2020, Wei Wang wrote: >> >Seems it didn't appear on the mailing list, resent it. >> > >> > Hi folks, >> > >> >I'm trying to build libvirt using meson

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:58 PM Ján Tomko <jtomko@redhat.com> wrote: > On a Thursday in 2020, Wei Wang wrote: > >Seems it didn't appear on the mailing list, resent it. > > > > Hi folks, > > > >I'm trying to build libvirt using meson with the latest upstream libvirt, > >but the compilation fails: > >(followed on

Hi Kostya, On 28/11/12 14:47, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > Hi, > > Building the following C code I get a call instruction that has no noreturn > attribute, while the function itself does have it. > > void foo(void **b) { > __builtin_longjmp(b, 1); > } > > > define void @_Z3fooPPv(i8** %b) noreturn nounwind uwtable { > entry: > %0 = bitcast i8** %b to i8*

Hi all, Recently I’ve noticed in coverage profiles that llvm_unreachable and the like are considered uncovered because there’s no special behavior in instrumentation to ‘ignore’ noreturn paths. While I don’t necessarily think it’s ideal to ignore all noreturn decls, I think there’s definitely room for some heuristics around ignoring things like llvm_unreachable (perhaps opt-in?). I’m

Hi all: Does anyone have a similar problem? Any Suggestions? THX! 2019-07-18 11:49:14，"netsurfed" <zhuohaofan@126.com> ： Hi all: Unable to install libvirt v5.5.0 correctly through the source code which clone from git. The error message is shown below. libtool: install: (cd /home/libvirt/src; /bin/sh /home/libvirt/libtool --silent --tag CC --mode=relink gcc

Hello, I am not sure about the semantic (if any) of returns_twice and noreturn attributes. int fork() __attribute__((returns_twice)); void join(int) __attribute__((noreturn)); int f(int n) { int t = fork(); n++; if (t != 0) join(t); return n; } Produces the following LLVM IR: ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable define i32 @f(i32 %n) local_unnamed_addr #0 { entry: %call = call i32

Move the OCaml binding to C _exit to an own module. Just code motion, adapting v2v in the process. --- docs/C_SOURCE_FILES | 2 +- mllib/Makefile.am | 5 ++++- mllib/exit-c.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ mllib/exit.ml | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ mllib/exit.mli | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ v2v/Makefile.am | 1 - v2v/changeuid-c.c | 33

On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 11/03/2017 07:20 PM, Alexandre Isoard via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hello, > > I am not sure about the semantic (if any) of returns_twice and noreturn > attributes. > > int fork() __attribute__((returns_twice)); > void join(int) __attribute__((noreturn)); > > int f(int n) { > int

During the review of https://reviews.llvm.org/D59978 we got to the question whether we can optimize based on the assumption that stack overflow is undefined behavior. While I think it is according to the C++ standard, Windows Structured Exception Handling and signal handlers might allow programs to recover/exit gracefully. Concretely, the patch D59978 wants add the noreturn attribute to functions

> If there's sensible control flow after a function returns, don't mark > it or calls to it noreturn. How do I prevent llvm-gcc from labelling a particular function with the noreturn attribute so an unreachable is not inserted after a call to it? Does llvm-gcc keep a list of functions somewhere that it thinks do not return? Max On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Eli Friedman

Hello, as of gcc v2.7.2.1, the noreturn attribute needs to be given *after* the prototype declaration and not before, but for gcc v3.x, things changed for this attribute again, since gcc v2.5.x did it the way, newer gcc versions prefer it... I've applied a small unified diff, fixing this stuff. THX for listening. CU Tom. (Thomas M.Ott) Germany -------------- next part -------------- ---