similar to: [LLVMdev] Why always abort in verifyFunction?

Hi Xiu, The Verifier pass runs a PreVerifier pass, which does not honour the action argument, and will always abort on a broken module, (Line 106, lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp) Perhaps you should file a bug against this, to allow you to not abort if you so wish. Joey On 11 June 2012 09:41, Guowei Xu <myesis at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello everyone: > > I have a little question

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Joey Gouly <joel.gouly at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Xiu, > > The Verifier pass runs a PreVerifier pass, which does not honour the > action argument, > and will always abort on a broken module, (Line 106, > lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp) > So the argument can not be used as described as the official document? I just want to make sure of that and

I followed what you said and called verifyModule() with the AbortProcessAction option. verifyModule() returns false, but does not abort and does not print out any information about what caused the verification to fail. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: >> I am writing an interprocedural compiler pass. Because the passneeds >> information from a

I also tried iterating through the functions of the module and calling verifyFunction(), which also returns false, but does not cause an abort or report anything to stderr about what caused the verification to fail. From the doxygen for verifyFunction() and verifyModule(), it seems like they both should print information to stderr if the verification fails and should abort opt if

I think I misread the doxygen. verifyFunction & verifyModule return false if no errors are detected. However, my question now becomes why does the code produced by my transform pass verification, but it causes an assertion failure in the byte reader when it (the code produced by my transform) is passed to another invocation of opt? Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I also tried iterating

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I am writing an interprocedural compiler pass. Because the passneeds > information from a FunctionPass, e.g., the post-dominance frontier > (PDF), and because a ModulePass is not permitted to require a > FunctionPass, I am forced to make my pass a FunctionPass and do majority > of its work in the doFinalization() method. ok > When

I am writing an interprocedural compiler pass. Because the passneeds information from a FunctionPass, e.g., the post-dominance frontier (PDF), and because a ModulePass is not permitted to require a FunctionPass, I am forced to make my pass a FunctionPass and do majority of its work in the doFinalization() method. When I run "opt -mypass -verify -o code2.bc code1.bc" I get no

Hey there, I'm relatively new to the llvm scene, and so far I'm liking it quite a bit. I'm a bit perplexed as to what llvm-gcc's role is in everything. I've used it to create .bc files for really simple functions and it seems to do quite well at that, but I've been trying to figure out how to take the output from llvm-gcc and actually use it in another program.

Hello, Following the tutorial "Kaleidoscope: Adding JIT and Optimizer Support", I found a Segmentation fault when I try to execute it. I am new in the neighbourhood, so I don't know what is wrong. Could you help me with that? I am working with the last version of LLVM (2.5). The code in chapter 2 and 3 works good, but the code in the chapter 4 did not work. Below are the detail of

FWIW, I'm also suddenly experiencing segfaults in code that used to work a few days ago (I'm using svn). This may be unrelated to the problem described below, but perhaps it's the same thing. In my case it seems that creating an ExecutionEngine has changed. I used to do Module* Mod = makeLLVMModule(); // basically create a gcd function verifyModule(*Mod,

Hello, using the LLVM API, I've build one very simple function that adds two ConstantInts and returns the result. I noticed that, when I emit IR code, it is optimized to a simple "ret i16 42" when I add 40 and 2. I'd like to see the operations that are necessary to compute the result, though. Can I somehow disable this optimization in the pass, leading to more verbose IR code?

Hi all: I am trying to compare the return value of a call instruction with 0. The called function's return type is uint32. The return value is 1 or 0. But the icmp instruction cannot be created. CallInst *ret = CallInst::Create(ptr_func, params.begin(), params.end(), "", bb); Value *cmp = new ICmpInst(*bb, ICmpInst::ICMP_EQ, ret, ,ConstantInt::get(getIntegerType(32), 0)

Hi Danny, On 2007-12-26, at 15:39, Danny wrote: > I've noticed that the BitcodeReader appears to be an internal > module, but the BitstreamReader is public. Should I be using the > BitstreamReader? If so how. The generic BitstreamReader class is public because it's used in other projects, including clang, to serialize data structures other than LLVM IR. The coding of

That worked quite well. Thank you. One question as a follow up: is there a nice/standard way of including the pre-made bitcode chunks in with the binaries that are being created which read them? Bascially, I'd like to have the same functionality, but rather than having one or more .bc files running around which need to be read at runtime by an executable, moving that into the code

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:11:01AM +0800, Michael.Kang wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Joey Gouly <joel.gouly at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Xiu, > > The Verifier pass runs a PreVerifier pass, which does not honour the action > argument, > and will always abort on a broken module, (Line 106, lib/VMCore/ > Verifier.cpp) >

Hello, Everyone I'm using llvm 3.6 DIBuilder module to build the debug information for Chapel language(the Chapel-llvm front end works fine). When I run the test program, I got these assertions failed: !718 Expected no forward declarations! !719 Expected no forward declarations! !720 Expected no forward declarations! !721 Expected no forward declarations! !722 All nodes should be resolved!

IRBuilder is a templated class, and one of the template arguments is the constant folder to use. By default it uses the ConstantFolder class which does target-independant constant folding. If you want to disable constant folding you can specify the NoFolder class instead, i.e. declare the builder as follows: IRBuilder<true, llvm::NoFolder> builder(body) On 26 Nov 2013, at 19:23, Daniel

Hi, I want to convert LLVM bitcode files to cpp. I use these commands: 1. clang -c -emit-llvm -fopenmp=libiomp5 oh2.c -o oh2.bc2. llc -march=cpp oh2.bc -o oh2.cpp3. g++ -fno-rtti -O0 -g `$HOME/llvmbuild/bin/llvm-config --cxxflags` oh2.cpp `$HOME/llvmbuild/bin/llvm-config --ldflags --libs --system-libs` -o oh2c After the 3rd command, I get a lot of compilation errors. Is it possible that llc

On Jun 17, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Paul Melis wrote: > FWIW, I'm also suddenly experiencing segfaults in code that used to > work > a few days ago (I'm using svn). This may be unrelated to the problem > described below, but perhaps it's the same thing. > > In my case it seems that creating an ExecutionEngine has changed. I > used > to do > > Module* Mod

I am programmatically building some functions in intermediate representation, and trying to verify them, but the verifier always reports that there is a problem, and I can't see why. Minimal test case: #ifdef _MSC_VER #pragma warning(disable : 4141) #pragma warning(disable : 4530) #pragma warning(disable : 4624) #endif #include <llvm/IR/IRBuilder.h> #include <llvm/IR/Verifier.h>