similar to: [LLVMdev] Assertion `PI && "Expected required passes to be initialized"' failed for AliasAnalysis.

Hi Alexander, I had the same error: sincos: /home/marcusmae/rpmbuild/BUILD/llvm/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:635: void llvm::PMTopLevelManager::schedulePass(llvm::Pass*): Assertion `PI && "Expected required passes to be initialized"' failed. The solution was to add: PassRegistry &Registry = *PassRegistry::getPassRegistry(); initializeCore(Registry);

Hi llvm-dev! I'm writing my master's thesis on sandboxing/isolation of plugins running in a multithreaded environment. These plugins run in a real-time environment where the cost of IPC/context switching and being at the scheduler's mercy is not an option. There can be a lot of plugin instances running and all have to perform some computations and return the result to the main thread

Hi Matthew, Did you add your alias analysis pass initializeEverythingMustAliasPass() into llvm::initializeAnalysis(PassRegistry &Registry) {} ? This will initialize it linked into the Analysis library. thanks, chen On Apr 28, 2014, at 8:43 PM, Jingyue Wu <jingyue at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Matthew O'Connor <thegreendragon at

Hi, I've just tagged LLVM 9.0.1-rc3. Testers can begin testing and uploading binaries. This will be the last release candidate unless there is a major problem. I'm planning to tag the final release on Dec 19. -Tom

Hi, tl;dr How can I include LLVM headers and use code from libLLVM*.a files when building compiler-rt libraries? I'd like to create a symbolizer that would be used in AddressSanitizer (ASan) and ThreadSanitizer (TSan) tools which are now part of projects/compiler-rt (as a first step, symbolizer should be able to return file/line info for a given address). I'd like to use and gradually

Hi, I've tagged the LLVM 9.0.1-rc1 release. Testers can begin testing and upload binaries. I've also updated the test-release.sh script to pull from GitHub instead of SVN, if you run into any issues with the new script, let me know. -Tom

Hi, I've just tagged the 9.0.1-final release. Testers can begin uploading binaries. -Tom

Hi, I've tagged LLVM 9.0.1-rc2. Testers can begin testing and uploading binaries. If all goes well, this will be the last -rc. -Tom

Hello everyone, 9.0.0-rc5 was just tagged from the release_90 branch at r371837. In the Git monorepo, it's tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc5. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc5 Binaries will be added as they become available. There is only a single change from rc4 to rc5. Once more, the hope is that this will be the last release candidate and that we can

Bill, For some reason the llvm-symbolizer tests fail on ppc: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux/builds/182/steps/ninja%20check%201/logs/stdio because it can't be started: /home/buildbots/ppc64le-clang-test/clang-ppc64le/stage1/./bin/llvm-symbolizer: /lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.21' not found (required by

Hello again, 9.0.0-rc4 was just tagged from the release_90 branch at r371490. In the Git monorepo, it's tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc4. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc4 Binaries will be added as they become available. There are not a lot of changes from rc3 to rc4, and there are again no open release blockers, so I'm hoping this will be the last

Hello everyone, 9.0.0-rc3 was tagged today from the release_90 branch at r370450. In the Git monorepo, it's tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc3. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc3 Binaries will be added as they become available. There are currently no open release blockers, which means if nothing new comes up, the final release could ship soon and this is

Hello everyone, 9.0.0-rc6 was just tagged from the release_90 branch at r372100. In the Git monorepo, it's tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc6. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc6 This is the same as rc5 plus one very minor change (r371969) that still seemed good to pick up. I'm not allocating extra time for testing this one, expecting to tag

Hello, I've been looking at ThreadSanitizer in https://github.com/llvm-mirror/compiler-rt and I noticed some Java-related files. Is there a version of ThreadSanitizer build on top of that, which I could use to sanitize my Java programs? I could not find any. I found https://github.com/google/java-thread-sanitizer, which seems to be now abandoned. It used to work with ThreadSanitizer v1. Has

clang+llvm-3.8.0-rc3-x86_64-linux-gnu-debian8.tar.xz (sha1sum: 2dedc6136d7cfbac8348652c543887964d92393c) Native: All ok Cross compiling to MIPS: All ok clang+llvm-3.8.0-rc3-mips-linux-gnu.tar.xz (sha1sum: f286149dbb2ea7e194c5c3719b6cded476f6e65f) All ok (aside from non-regression failures in check-all). There were two kinds of check-all failure: * mips64 sanitizers. Not a regression since

Dear testers, Release Candidate 3 has just been tagged [1]. Please build, test, and upload to the sftp. If there are no regressions from previous release candidates, this will be the last release candidate before the final release. Release notes can still go into the branch. Thanks again for all your work! Hans [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-branch-commits/2016-February/009866.html

> > On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:51 AM, Jiri Danek via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I found https://github.com/google/java-thread-sanitizer, which seems to > be now abandoned. It used to work with ThreadSanitizer v1. Has anybody ever > tried to make it work with the current ThreadSanitizer? > > I gave it a try and bending java-thread-sanitizer to my

Hi, I've tagged 3.8.1-rc1, testers can begin testing. -Tom

I have added a Jenkins check for this test, which explains why it fails on some builds. Can we change the test to keep its output? Will it just be blank anyways? > On Jan 20, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > The test fails again:

Hello, While instrumenting LLVM IR in ThreadSanitizer (race detector), I need to distinguish between a store to vtable pointer (vptr) and any other regular store. This special treatment should be limited to class DTORs, so I should also know when a function is a DTOR. Rationale: need to distinguish benign and harmful races on vptr (