similar to: [LLVMdev] PLEASE help with Alias Analysis initialization assertion at the end of my pass

Griffin Wright wrote: > > Hello all, > > I really, really, really need your help. This is my third email now, > please don't ignore me! I understand this must be a trivial thing, but > I've ground to a halt, and REALLY need some guidance. Please see below for > the context of my problem. I'm not trying to be a waste of time, but I'm > desperate here.

Yes, it is a pass. Here is a very general overview of the file structure as far as the AA is concerned. LLVM is not my strong-suit, I do hardware simulators, not compilers. using namespace llvm; char RelRecovery::ID = 0; static RegisterPass<RelRecovery> X("relRecovery", "Reliability transformation for lightweight recovery"); void

Hello all, I am working with someone else's LLVM code, which is about 8 months old. Part of this pass involves AliasAnalysis, and I'm getting the above assertion when the pass completes. The dump is as follows: -------------------------------- Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. 0xf7fdf430 in __kernel_vsyscall () (gdb) bt #0 0xf7fdf430 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xf602e921 in

Hey everyone, So I have an LLVM pass that appears to run completely and work fine, and then it aborts at the very end. When exiting the final runOnFunction call, I get the following error / stack dump. I cannot figure out why this is happening for the life of me - does anyone have any ideas? I'm not trying to do any crazy deallocation or anything, it just seems like a normal pass to me.

Hi Griffin, did your pass create a data structure that holds values somehow, and forgot to delete it? Also, try running under valgrind in case this is due to a memory error of some kind. Ciao, Duncan. > So I have an LLVM pass that appears to run completely and work fine, and > then it aborts at the very end. When exiting the final runOnFunction call, > I get the following error /

Using Valgrind hasn't shown me anything terribly unusual. And I'm confused because its not even trying to delete a real instruction; deleting a void type with no name? That doesn't make any sense... Any other hints? I've seen a few posts in the past about this relating to some internal LLVM bugs... -Griffin On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:26:41 +0100, Duncan Sands <baldrick at

Hello, I've been stuck with a problem for about a month, and it has stumped everyone in my lab. I have a function pass that runs, and when it finishes and opt goes to return, I get: While deleting: void % An asserting value handle still pointed to this value! UNREACHABLE executed at /x/grwright/llvm/llvm-2.9/lib/VMCore/Value.cpp:569! On a simple test case, the error becomes 'i32 %'

Dear all, The below has been tested quite thoroughly by now, including performance-testing by the way of using a modified compiler that triggers the below while compiling at least an old part of LLVM ["Function.cpp"] and sorting a symbol table with >7000 global variables. Unfortunately, the optimization I have been working on for which I _thought_ I needed the ability to sort a

I have ran under valgrind memcheck the process using libLLVM-2.9.so (rev.126022) and got several errors: ==24227== Invalid read of size 1 ==24227== at 0x40274C9: memcpy (mc_replace_strmem.c:497) ==24227== by 0x40D5B84: char* std::string::_S_construct<char const*>(char const*, char const*, std::allocator<char> const&, std::forward_iterator_tag) (in

Dear LLVMers, I need help with one error in my register allocator. I am getting errors when folding instructions for the x86 (it does not happen when I use the PowerPC as target). The problem is that, when I execute something like: mi = mbb->insert(mbb->erase(mi), fmi), where mbb is a MachineBasicBlock, valgrind gives this error message: Address 0x42C62B0 is 24 bytes inside a block

Hi All, I have just started using LLVM . i am facing a issue while using ilist container. Here is a struct with ilist container as its one element. typedef ilist<Instruction *> InstListType; struct list_node { int Impact; InstListType InstList; }; list_node

Hey all, So I've been working to fix a problem I had wherein I could not properly initialize AliasAnalysis profiling information. In order to fix it, I've had to rewrite how my pass operates, such that it contains this in the FunctionPass declaration; RelRecovery() : FunctionPass(ID) { llvm::initializeRelRecoveryPass(*PassRegistry::getPassRegistry()); } and contains these

Hello: I recently attempted to update the ARM cross-compilation setup I had with llvm, and it did not work, so I wanted to revert back to my initial configuration. I reconfigured/make/make install'ed my llvm which executed fine, and then cleared out my llvm-gcc obj and install folders, and reconfigured gcc from within llvm-gcc/obj as follows: ../llvm-gcc-4.2-2.9.source/configure

Hi Has anybody tell me how to create some new type qualifies in LVM? A type qualify, like "const" in C, is useful for program analysis. I hope that I can set/get the type qualify of any value in a program analysed. Or, if I could add a property to the value class and set/get the property, it is same to add some new type qualifies. So, I simply insert a "int" private

I think the implicit iterator conversions are much less important now that we have range based for loops, but I still like having them. On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On 2015-Oct-07, at 17:57, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> > wrote: > > > > I've been

Xia, LLVM doesn't really use type qualifiers the way you're thinking about it. In LLVM parlance, types are neither const nor non-const, they just define the fundamental nature of a value. However, LLVM fully supports Constant Values (see include/llvm/Constant.h) and constant global variables (see include/llvm/GlobalVariable.h). You might want to read up on the LLVM IR a bit here:

I've been digging into some undefined behaviour stemming from how ilist is typically configured. r247937, r247944, and r247978 caused a UBSan failure to start firing on our Green Dragon bots, and after an IRC conversation between David and Nick and Mehdi, we added a blacklist: -- $echo "src:$WORKSPACE/llvm/include/llvm/CodeGen/MachineFunction.h" >> sanitize.blacklist --

"Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: >> On 2015-Oct-20, at 11:23, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >> >> I think the implicit iterator conversions are much less important >> now that we have range based for loops, but I still like having >> them. > > IMO, if a developer has an ilist iterator

On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:41:38PM +1000, Emil Mikulic wrote: > The "make check" produced: > === Summary === > > # of expected passes 2209 > # of unexpected failures 41 > # of expected failures 5 > gmake[1]: *** [check-local] Error 1 > gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/home/emil/ll/objdir-llvm/test' > gmake: ***

Guys, In this case, I wanted to hack globalopt pass to require ScalarEvolution analysis. It seems ScalarEvolution is not released after globalopt pass, and it will hold a reference to the basicblocks. Later when the function is removed(by inline pass), coredump happened: opt test.bc -mem2reg -globalopt -inline -loop-unroll -debug-pass Details -o out.bc >& log So it seems to me if a pass