similar to: [LLVMdev] FW: IntervalMap - maximum alignment requirements

Hi, I'm debugging a fault seen in RuntimeDyldELF on 32-bit machines, stemming from its use of IntervalMap. The documentation at the top of IntervalMap.h states that it is useful for 4 or 8 byte types, and so RuntimeDyldELF correctly uses it. However, further down the file is this comment: // The root data is either a RootLeaf or a RootBranchData instance. // We can't put

On Mar 21, 2012, at 11:20 AM, James Molloy <james.molloy at arm.com> wrote: > Should the documentation be updated to reflect this requirement (and RuntimeDyldELF rewritten to follow it) or should we fix IntervalMap? (my current hack fix is to add __attribute__((aligned)) to the end of the ‘data[]’ member, but I’m sure that’s not the best way). You could use the same trick as

On 5/14/12 4:32 AM, Umesh Kalappa wrote: > Hi All , > > Was trying to build the LLVM src from > http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/branches/release_30 ,But unable > to build the same and clang poped up with below error . First, it sounds like you're building LLVM 3.0, Poolalloc, and SAFECode with an unmodified version of clang. Is this correct? If so, which version of

Hi All , Was trying to build the LLVM src from http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/branches/release_30 ,But unable to build the same and clang poped up with below error . llvm[1]: Compiling IntervalMap.cpp for Debug build In file included from /root/projects/safecode/llvm/lib/Support/IntervalMap.cpp:14: /root/projects/safecode/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/IntervalMap.h:1980:32: error: use

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 5/14/12 4:32 AM, Umesh Kalappa wrote: > > Hi All , > > Was trying to build the LLVM src from > http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/branches/release_30 ,But unable to > build the same and clang poped up with below error . > > > First, it sounds like you're building LLVM

Thank you all for the responses, John, My Bad here you go clang version 3.2 (trunk) Target: i386-pc-linux-gnu Thread model: posix [root at localhost opensrc]# cat /etc/centos-release CentOS release 6.2 (Final) Matthieu, Thanks for the fix and let me try again with latest trunk. ~Umesh On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Matthieu Monrocq <

Hi Lang, Yeah, I remember this case. Basically what’s happening is that there are relocations for ELF on x86 that use a value that is present in the object image as part of the calculation for the final value that goes in the same location. If you ever find yourself applying relocations for a second time (for instance, because the loaded object location is remapped for out-of-proc execution)

I managed to make it work by cloning code from lli and making my own cpp wrapper. 2013/9/22 Konstantin Olkhovskiy <lupus at oxnull.net> > Hi List, > > I'm trying to upgrade our llvm-c based compiler from JIT to MCJIT. > While trying to do so I encountered several problems. Looks like C > API does not have proper functions to intialize LLVM with MCJIT. > I ended up

Hi List, I'm trying to upgrade our llvm-c based compiler from JIT to MCJIT. While trying to do so I encountered several problems. Looks like C API does not have proper functions to intialize LLVM with MCJIT. I ended up wrapping the following functions in my own init routine. LLVMInitializeX86TargetInfo(); LLVMInitializeX86Target(); LLVMInitializeX86TargetMC(); LLVMInitializeX86AsmPrinter();

It's probably best to open a bug. -Andy From: Alexey Samsonov [mailto:samsonov at google.com] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:27 AM To: Kaylor, Andrew Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: Assertions in RuntimeDyldELF in ExecutionEngine/MCJIT tests On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com<mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com>> wrote:

Yes, at some point we definitely should introduce stubs as a last resort for x86-64 relocations when the sections are too far apart, but I'd like to avoid it whenever possible. What I meant in my previous message was that I'd have RecordingMemoryManager use something other than malloc (such as the memory API used by SectionMemoryManager) to keep section near one another. -Andy From:

Hi Alexey, I think the most likely way to resolve this is to have the RecordingMemoryManager do something more complex to manage its allocations in such a way as to guarantee that they are all within proximity of one another. The code that is asserting is handling a relocation where code was generated to use a 32-bit relative offset in 64-bit code. If the two sections involved really are more

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com>wrote: > Yes, at some point we definitely should introduce stubs as a last resort > for x86-64 relocations when the sections are too far apart, but I’d like to > avoid it whenever possible.**** > > ** ** > > What I meant in my previous message was that I’d have > RecordingMemoryManager use

Hi Andrew, Looks like RecordingMemoryManager in lli just calls malloc() and it would be strange to make assumptions (or enforce) that the difference between two returned pointers in 64-bit virtual address space will be fit into 32 bits. Can we do smth similar to what Adhemerval proposed (see the special case in processRelocationRef for ELF::R_PPC64_REL24 relocations)? On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at

Hi folks, Three MCJIT tests are failing on both our buildbots (check-all and self-host) and I'm not sure what's the best way to fix it. Some test passes, some not on { A9, A15 } x { Ubuntu 12.10, Ubuntu 12.04 }, the error is: lli: /home/user/devel/llvm/src/lib/ExecutionEngine/RuntimeDyld/RuntimeDyldELF.cpp:307: void llvm::RuntimeDyldELF::resolveARMRelocation(const

Hi LLVMDev list I am building LLVM from the SVN trunk at 213638 on a W7/X86_64/Cygwin system and running make check leads to a series of failed assertions like ******************** FAIL: LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/test-setcond-fp.ll (6185 of 11245) ******************** TEST 'LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/test-setcond-fp.ll' FAILED ******************** Script: --

Hi! I'm trying to run LLVM test suite under AddressSanitizer and get test failures in: LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/simpletest-remote.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/test-data-align-remote.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/test-fp-no-external-funcs-remote.ll LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/MCJIT/test-global-init-nonzero-remote.ll All of them fail with assertion: lli:

Hi Lang Le 24/07/2014 18:17, Lang Hames a écrit : > Hi Francis, > > It is possible to XFAIL a regression test (grep for XFAIL in the > llvm/test directory for examples), however that's discouraged. The > fact that this test is failing indicates that part of the JIT > infrastructure is broken on W7/X86_64/Cygwin. > > How long have you been building LLVM in this

Hi Renato, > /home/user/devel/llvm/src/lib/ExecutionEngine/RuntimeDyld/RuntimeDyldELF.cpp:307: > void llvm::RuntimeDyldELF::resolveARMRelocation(const llvm::SectionEntry&, > uint64_t, uint32_t, uint32_t, int32_t): Assertion `(*TargetPtr & 0x000F0FFF) > == 0' failed. I think there's a discussion going on about this already at

Hi Nicolas, On 2-Apr-09, at 6:04 PM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Thanks for verifying this. Could you patch this or should I open a > new bug report and find a generic solution first? I don't have write access so the best I could do would be to submit a patch, and I'm crazy busy at the moment. I actually think the check I described below is fine and would fix this bug (but