Displaying 20 results from an estimated 5000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] How to get llvm bitcode executed"
2012 May 22
2
[LLVMdev] How to get llvm bitcode executed
Thanks Duncan and Ashok,
As Duncan described, "lli -load=libstdc++.dylib ..." works. I,
however, encounted an "Illegal instruction" message, while I was
trying to interpret a large program. So, does lli have a debug switch
for dumping out the details for errors?
Using llc is not that simple, and I have not gotten through the
compilation process. For instance, "llc -o
2012 May 22
0
[LLVMdev] How to get llvm bitcode executed
Guess I have found some clues. Some necessary libraries have to be
loaded while trying to generate native code or do interpretation. Then
another question emerges: Is there a way to determine the necessary
libraries in need? And where to locate these necessary libraries?
Xiaolong
> Hi All,
>
> I have a program that uses C++ STL a lot. To have the source code for
> STL functions, I
2012 May 22
0
[LLVMdev] How to get llvm bitcode executed
Hi Xialong,
> I have a program that uses C++ STL a lot. To have the source code for
> STL functions, I undefined "_GLIBCXX_EXTERN_TEMPLATE" in
> c++config.h. In spite of this, after compilation (via clang) and
> linking (via llvm-ld), the resulting bitcode contains a few declared
> functions (with no definitions).
>
> My question is: In the scenario where some
2012 May 23
0
[LLVMdev] How to get llvm bitcode executed
Hi Xiaolong,
> As Duncan described, "lli -load=libstdc++.dylib ..." works. I,
> however, encounted an "Illegal instruction" message, while I was
> trying to interpret a large program.
are you using the interpreter or the JIT?
So, does lli have a debug switch
> for dumping out the details for errors?
>
> Using llc is not that simple, and I have not gotten
2017 Oct 01
2
load with alignment of 1 crashes from being unaligned
Below is attached a full IR module that can reproduce this issue, but the
part to notice is this:
%Foo96Bits = type <{ i24, i24, i24, i24 }>
define internal fastcc i16 @main.0.1() unnamed_addr #2 !dbg !113 {
Entry:
%value = alloca %Foo96Bits, align 1
%b = alloca i24, align 4
%0 = bitcast %Foo96Bits* %value to i8*, !dbg !129
call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i64(i8* %0, i8* bitcast
2013 May 21
4
[LLVMdev] malloc / free & memcpy optimisations.
The front end I'm building for an existing interpreted language is
unfortunately producing output similar to this far too often;
define void @foo(i8* nocapture %dest, i8* nocapture %src, i32 %len)
nounwind {
%1 = tail call noalias i8* @malloc(i32 %len) nounwind
tail call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i32(i8* %1, i8* %src, i32 %len, i32
1, i1 false)
tail call void
2018 Mar 22
2
new @llvm.memcpy and @llvm.memset API in trunk - how to use alignment?
The new @llvm.memcpy API does not have an alignment parameter. Instead the
docs say to use the align <n> attribute. How is this supposed to work with
different alignments?
For example, I have one memcpy with align 4, align 4, and another with
align 1, align 1.
; Function Attrs: argmemonly nounwind
declare void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i64(i8* nocapture writeonly align 4,
i8* nocapture
2010 May 05
2
[LLVMdev] Why llvm function name is different with . and ..
declare i8 @llvm.atomic.load.max.i8.p0i8( i8* <ptr>, i8 <delta> )
declare i16 @llvm.atomic.load.max.i16.p0i16( i16* <ptr>, i16 <delta> )
declare i32 @llvm.atomic.load.max.i32.p0i32( i32* <ptr>, i32 <delta> )
declare i64 @llvm.atomic.load.max.i64.p0i64( i64* <ptr>, i64 <delta> )
declare i8 @llvm.atomic.load.min.i8.p0i8( i8* <ptr>, i8
2013 May 21
0
[LLVMdev] malloc / free & memcpy optimisations.
> could you allocate the memory on the stack instead (alloca instruction)?
This is mainly for string or binary blob handling, using the stack isn't a
great idea for size reasons.
While I'm experimenting with simple code examples now, and I picked a
simple one for this email. I'm certain things will get much more
complicated once I implement more features of the language.
On Tue,
2014 Oct 17
2
[LLVMdev] opt -O2 leads to incorrect operation (possibly a bug in the DSE)
Hi all,
Consider the following example:
define void @fn(i8* %buf) #0 {
entry:
%arrayidx = getelementptr i8* %buf, i64 18
tail call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i64(i8* %arrayidx, i8* %buf, i64
18, i32 1, i1 false)
%arrayidx1 = getelementptr i8* %buf, i64 18
store i8 1, i8* %arrayidx1, align 1
tail call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i64(i8* %buf, i8* %arrayidx, i64
18, i32 1, i1 false)
2018 Mar 22
0
new @llvm.memcpy and @llvm.memset API in trunk - how to use alignment?
On 3/22/2018 3:15 PM, Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev wrote:
> The new @llvm.memcpy API does not have an alignment parameter. Instead
> the docs say to use the align <n> attribute. How is this supposed to
> work with different alignments?
>
> For example, I have one memcpy with align 4, align 4, and another with
> align 1, align 1.
>
> ; Function Attrs: argmemonly
2018 Nov 23
2
is this a bug in an optimization pass?
The frontend code is a pretty simple for loop, that counts from i = 0;
i != 10; i += 1
It gets optimized into and endless loop.
export fn entry() void {
var array: [10]Bar = undefined;
var x = for (array) |elem, i| {
if (i == 1) break elem;
} else bar2();
}
Here's the generated IR:
; ModuleID = 'test'
source_filename = "test"
target datalayout =
2012 Jan 23
2
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in the dragonegg
Hi Duncan,
>> #include<stdio.h>
>> #include<string.h>
>>
>> int main(int argc, char** argv){
>>
>> char a[8] = "aaaaaaa";
>> char b[8] = "bbbbbbb";
>>
>> char *c = (char*) malloc(sizeof(char)*(strlen(a)+strlen(b)+1));
>> memcpy(c, a, strlen(a));
>> memcpy(c + strlen(a), b, strlen(b) + 1);
>>
2018 Nov 29
2
AliasAnalysis does not look though a memcpy
Hi,
I'm trying to get AA results for two pointers, but it seems that AA
cannot look though a memcpy. For example:
define dso_local spir_func void @fun() {
entry:
; Store an address of `var'
%var = alloca i32, align 4
store i32 42, i32* %var, align 4
%var.addr = alloca i32*, align 8
store i32* %var, i32** %var.addr, align 8
; Memcpy
2017 Jun 19
2
LLVM behavior different depending on function symbol name
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2017-06-19 8:45 GMT-07:00 Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I have a Zig implementation of ceil which is emitted into LLVM IR like
>> this:
>>
>> ; Function Attrs: nobuiltin nounwind
>> define
2017 Sep 16
2
assertion triggered since update to llvm 5
When zig updated to llvm 5 we started hitting this assertion:
zig:
/home/andy/downloads/llvm-project/llvm/include/llvm/Support/Casting.h:106:
static bool llvm::isa_impl_cl<To, const From*>::doit(const From*) [with To
= llvm::Instruction; From = llvm::Value]: Assertion `Val && "isa<> used on
a null pointer"' failed.
I wonder if however this was caused by an
2017 Sep 17
2
assertion triggered since update to llvm 5
Can you please open a bug on bugzilla and attach the ir testcase? Your fix
doesn't look right (just hiding the assertion failure)
On Sep 17, 2017 10:45 AM, "Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev" <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> What do you think about this patch?
>
> --- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/NewGVN.cpp
> +++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/NewGVN.cpp
> @@
2018 Dec 05
2
AliasAnalysis does not look though a memcpy
On 12/5/18 9:51 AM, Andrew Savonichev via llvm-dev wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm trying to get AA results for two pointers, but it seems that AA
>> cannot look though a memcpy. For example:
>>
>> define dso_local spir_func void @fun() {
>> entry:
>> ; Store an address of `var'
>> %var = alloca i32, align 4
>>
2017 Sep 17
4
assertion triggered since update to llvm 5
So, 90% of the time I've seen this, it was memory corruption, usually use
after free. I know I fixed one after 5.0 branched.
You should compile with address sanitizer enabled, and I suspect you will
find the issue quicky.
If not, we really need ir that reproduces it.
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017, 12:27 PM Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I think I forgot to
2012 Jan 24
0
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in the dragonegg
Hi Pablo, I can reproduce this with the supplied IR. It is related to the use
of __memcpy_chk. As far as I can see it is a bug in lli or the LLVM code
generators. Can you please open a bugreport, attaching the LLVM IR.
Ciao, Duncan.
On 23/01/12 17:00, Pablo Barrio wrote:
> Hi Duncan,
>>> #include<stdio.h>
>>> #include<string.h>
>>>
>>> int