similar to: [LLVMdev] seg fault in AddReachableCodeToWorklist

Thanks Michael. Can you please explain you way a bit more? Did you run a function pass then a loop pass? On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Michael Ilseman <michael at lunarg.com> wrote: > Whenever I was tying to do that (in version 2.8), it didn't give them > to me in a topological order. What I did, as a hack-ish temporary > measure, was rely on Function's ordering, and

Whenever I was tying to do that (in version 2.8), it didn't give them to me in a topological order. What I did, as a hack-ish temporary measure, was rely on Function's ordering, and just iterated over all the blocks in the function, checking to see if the loop contains that block. Not at all ideal, and what I was writing later evolved to not need the topological ordering constraint, so I

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Naznin Fauzia <laboni14 at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Devang and John. My pass is actually a loop pass, not a function > pass. So, I couldnt override the getAnalysisUsage. > A LoopPass is no different from a FunctionPass here. You can use getAnalysisUsage and getAnalysis in a LoopPass. > I am in a loop pass, I know the outermost loop. Now How

Hi all, I have a question about llvm::LoopBase getBlocks() method. Does it return the basic blocks inside the loop in random order? I need to order the blocks in some valid topological ordering of the AST. If getBlocks() does not do that, what can I do to find the ordering? Thanks, Naznin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On 2/28/11 4:43 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > > On Feb 28, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Naznin Fauzia wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> How Can I get the Loops around an Instruction? >> >> I know I can get the basic block of an instruction using >> inst.getParent() which returns a BasicBlock*. Now I want to use the >> getLoopFor(BasicBlock) method of the class

Thanks Devang and John. My pass is actually a loop pass, not a function pass. So, I couldnt override the getAnalysisUsage. I am in a loop pass, I know the outermost loop. Now How can I get the loopInfo from here? I couldn't find helpful methods in the LoopInfo class documents. On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 5:52 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 2/28/11 4:43 PM,

On Feb 28, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Naznin Fauzia wrote: > Hi all, > > How Can I get the Loops around an Instruction? > > I know I can get the basic block of an instruction using inst.getParent() which returns a BasicBlock*. Now I want to use the getLoopFor(BasicBlock) method of the class LoopInfo. > But I dont know how to get the LoopInfo. > > BasicBlock* bb =

Hi all, How Can I get the Loops around an Instruction? I know I can get the basic block of an instruction using inst.getParent() which returns a BasicBlock*. Now I want to use the getLoopFor(BasicBlock) method of the class LoopInfo. But I dont know how to get the LoopInfo. BasicBlock* bb = inst.getParent(); (... what should I add here?) Loop* innerloop = LI -> getLoopFor(bb): Thanks.

Hi Sanjay, Thanks, I saw this flag and it's definitely should be considered, but it appeared to me to be static characteristic of target platform. I'm not sure how appropriate it would be to change its value from a front-end. It says "Has", while optional flag would rather say "Uses" meaning that implementation cares about floating point exceptions. Regards, Sergey

Hi again, It's partially done. My concern is that it won't be accepted as is because of adding the flag parameter in a lot of places. I'd like to show what it looks like (here, not on llvm-commit yet), maybe someone could suggest a better way. There are two sources of the flag: field of TargetOptions and function attribute. I had to add the later one for InstCombine pass. Still

I can't upload my program due to confidentiality, but the problem is obvious. At lib/Analysis/ConstantFolding.cpp:646 Constant *C = ConstantExpr::getGetElementPtr(Ops[0], NewIdxs); if (ConstantExpr *CE = dyn_cast<ConstantExpr>(C)) { if (Constant *Folded = ConstantFoldConstantExpression(CE, TD, TLI)) C = Folded; } The generated ConstantExpr C doesn't inherit the

Attached is an example of how to reproduce the issue. It uses a C file that happens to has a bunch of switch statements which are encoded as jump tables, giving us data-in-code. Usage: To build object files with clang via the -integrated-as versus via GCC: $ export NDK_DIR=<my_ndk_dir> $ export LLVM_DIR=<my_llvm_bin_dir> $ make To test that the generated objects contain the same

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();

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 /

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

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

Dear Sir\ Madam  I am trying to maximise a complicated loglikelihood function  via EM algorithm which consists of two step "E-step and M-step"and in this case I need to maximize the expected of like lihood function " which I get from E- step" and take those estimates of parameter to update the E-step and repate these till convargence has been met. So I need to know if I

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 %'

Hello, Getting a seg fault with 0.11.4 /var/lib/gems/1.8/gems/ferret-0.11.4/lib/ferret/browser.rb:226: [BUG] Segmentation fault ruby 1.8.5 (2006-08-25) [i486-linux] Maybe this a known issue but I thought that I better report it. Cheers, henke