similar to: [LLVMdev] Dematerializing functions during opt

Hi, I followed the build instructions at http://www.aarongray.org/LLVM/BuildingLLVMonCygwin.html to build LLVM and LLVM GCC. Everything went fine except for the 'make install' step of llvm. At this step, I am getting a big list of files which are under /cygdrive/c/llvm-2.8/include/llvm and /cygdrive/c/llvm-2.8/include/llvm-c. The error I am getting is: /usr/bin/install:

I have a question about the performance of the implementation of the stack protector in LLVM. Consider the following C program: ===== void canary() { char buf[20]; buf[0]++; } int main() { int i; for (i = 0; i < 1000000000; ++i) canary(); return 0; } ===== This should definately run slower when stack protection is enabled, right? I have measured the runtime of

If you compile this with optimizations, then the 'canary()' function should be totally inlined into the 'main()' function. In that case, the cost of the stack protectors will be very small compared to the loop. -bw On Mar 9, 2012, at 2:52 AM, Job Noorman <jobnoorman at gmail.com> wrote: > I have a question about the performance of the implementation of the stack >

Milind, Have you filed a bug on this? If not, can you please open a bug report (http://llvm.org/bugs)? -Hal ----- Original Message ----- > I am hitting an LLVM assertion from the llc tool iff the bitcode file > is optimized at -O3 level by opt). -O1 and -O2 levels of opt do not > cause this assert. > > LLVM version 3.4svn > DEBUG build with assertions. > Built Jul 14

I am hitting an LLVM assertion from the llc tool iff the bitcode file is optimized at -O3 level by opt). -O1 and -O2 levels of opt do not cause this assert. LLVM version 3.4svn DEBUG build with assertions. Built Jul 14 2013 (15:39:08). Default target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Host CPU: amdfam10 I have attached the input bc file before -O3 optimization :bzip2.del.bc.tgz I have attached

So it looks like the verifier doesn't catch this condition - I think it should. The attached program reproduces the problem - verification succeeds, but the linker fails with a type assertion. BTW, if no one has the bandwidth to work on this I'm willing to attempt a fix, assuming that you agree that the verifier should discover this condition. Michael Muller wrote: > >

Hi, I don't see the LLVM bug I filed (http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16780) making any progress. Can someone suggest me whether the bug is in the correct state? -Milind On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Milind Chabbi <Milind.Chabbi at rice.edu> wrote: > Hi Hal, > > I have filed http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16780 > > -Milind > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at

Hi Nico, Reid, and Anton, I missed the discussion when I implemented dllexport/dllimport for our local tree. I essentially implemented your approach#1. I was trying to avoid the various external_linkage + some_attribute approaches because it seems that external_linkage would imply the external linkage without the dllimport/dllexport semantics, and there may be existing compiler codes that rely on

I was about to post a bug concerning this, but I thought I'd check with you folks first. The symptom is a SIGSEGV in my program in the standard library template for red black trees (bits/stl_tree.h). The crash occurs as the result of an LLVM Module method, getConstantPointerRef which looks like: // Accessor for the underlying GlobalValRefMap... ConstantPointerRef

Hi Hal, I have filed http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16780 -Milind On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Milind, > > Have you filed a bug on this? If not, can you please open a bug report (http://llvm.org/bugs)? > > -Hal > > ----- Original Message ----- >> I am hitting an LLVM assertion from the llc tool iff the bitcode

This is release 0.9.53 of Wine, a free implementation of Windows on Unix. What's new in this release: - RunOnce and Run entries now executed on startup. - Beginnings of support for emulated disk devices. - Many Richedit improvements. - Nicer looking color dialog. - Lots of bug fixes. Because of lags created by using mirrors, this message may reach you before the release is

Hey all, I'm working on adding interprocedural FunctionAttrs optimization ( http://llvm-cs.pcc.me.uk/lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionAttrs.cpp) to ThinLTO so it does something similar to what LTO is doing ( https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33648). I've hit a problem with how the FunctionAttrs optimization expects linkage types. In ThinLTO since the linkage type is set to External or

Hi all: I am trying to get the return value of a call instruction that I inserted during the optimization pass I wrote. I have something like the following: CallInst *InitCall = CallInst::Create(InitFn, Args.begin(), Args.end(), "log_load_addr_ret", LI); CastInst *InsertedCast =

If I remove this code, diff --git a/tools/gold/gold-plugin.cpp b/tools/gold/gold-plugin.cpp index 46a5f46..a8978d5 100644 --- a/tools/gold/gold-plugin.cpp +++ b/tools/gold/gold-plugin.cpp @@ -428,8 +428,6 @@ getMinVisibility(GlobalValue::VisibilityTypes A, return A; if (B == GlobalValue::HiddenVisibility) return B; - if (A == GlobalValue::ProtectedVisibility) - return A;

I have a module having the blockaddress instruction. When I link it into another module and delete the original, blockaddress disappears and is replaced by inttoptr (i32 1 to i8*). Please compile and run the attached program to see the demo of this problem. Right after linking modules, blockaddress still exists: @switch.bbs = internal global [3 x i8*] [i8* blockaddress(@my_func,

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > Hi, > here I am again with "why is this so" kind of a question. Among different > types of MachineOperand there are MO_ExternalSymbol and MO_GlobalAddress. > > For MO_GlobalAddress, we can get usefull information from the getGlobal() > method, which returns GlobalValue*. Wouldn'it it be better is >

Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> writes: > >> Óscar Fuentes wrote: >>> The following message is a courtesy copy of an article >>> that has been posted to gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel as well. >>> >>> Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> writes: >>> >>>> This is x86_64. I have a problem where an

On 3/21/11 2:00 PM, Damien Vincent wrote: > I reply to myself... I didn't go in the right direction in my previous > email. > > There is an easy way to tell if a GlobalValue corresponds to data or code: > const GlobalValue *GV; > if(Function::classof(GV)) > ... // process the global value as a function > else > ... // process the global value as data > >

I tried to compile the "bugpoint" project on Windows 7 MSVC 10 64-bit and I see the following failure: 8>W:\LLVM_org\llvm\include\llvm/ADT/Optional.h(73): error C2839: invalid return type 'llvm::GlobalValue::VisibilityTypes *' for overloaded 'operator ->' 8> W:\LLVM_org\llvm\include\llvm/ADT/Optional.h(71) : while compiling class template member

I reply to myself... I didn't go in the right direction in my previous email. There is an easy way to tell if a GlobalValue corresponds to data or code: const GlobalValue *GV; if(Function::classof(GV)) ... // process the global value as a function else ... // process the global value as data Damien On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Damien Vincent <damien.llvm at