Displaying 20 results from an estimated 200 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Assert with getZExtValue()?"
2012 Nov 16
0
[LLVMdev] Assert with getZExtValue()?
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Was hoping it might get some help or a better explanation of this:
>
> /ADT/APInt.h:1217: uint64_t llvm::APInt::getZExtValue() const: Assertion
> `getActiveBits() <= 64 && "Too many bits for uint64_t"' failed.
The error message is exactly what it says: you're trying to call
2012 Nov 16
2
[LLVMdev] Assert with getZExtValue()?
Eli,
Thanks for responding. Yes, I read the error message but it seems odd
that it would be trying to use more than 64 bits. It compiles and executes
in gcc on 32 bit arch just fine. I'll probably take your suggestion and
file a bug with a reduced testcase.
Thanks again,
Ryan
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012
2012 Dec 04
0
[LLVMdev] Assert with getZExtValue()?
So is there a way to return the value as a string instead?
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Was hoping it might get some help or a better explanation of this:
>
> /ADT/APInt.h:1217: uint64_t llvm::APInt::getZExtValue() const: Assertion
> `getActiveBits() <= 64 && "Too many bits for uint64_t"' failed.
>
2012 Dec 03
0
[LLVMdev] Assert with getZExtValue()?
So the problem here was trying to return MIN_VALUE zero extended, if I
return sign extended than this issue is resolved; however, I still get an
error with getSExtValue when trying to get the value of the const from
Instruction: %mask166 = and i128 %lvar_ins176, -18446462598732840961
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Eli,
>
> Thanks
2016 Jul 21
2
FreeBSD user willing to try fix a unit test?
Hi all
In unittests/ADT/APIntTest.cpp I came across this test:
// XFAIL this test on FreeBSD where the system gcc-4.2.1 seems to miscompile it.
#if defined(__llvm__) || !defined(__FreeBSD__)
TEST(APIntTest, i33_Count) {
APInt i33minus2(33, static_cast<uint64_t>(-2), true);
EXPECT_EQ(0u, i33minus2.countLeadingZeros());
EXPECT_EQ(32u, i33minus2.countLeadingOnes());
EXPECT_EQ(33u,
2008 Jan 24
2
[LLVMdev] Complex constant expressions?
Neil Booth wrote:
> Talin wrote:-
>
>> Well, I may be using it wrong. But looking at APFloat.h, I see four
>> functions that purport to convert to integer:
>>
>> opStatus convertToInteger(integerPart *, unsigned int, bool,
>> roundingMode) const;
>> opStatus convertFromSignExtendedInteger(const integerPart *,
>>
2015 Aug 10
2
Bug or expected behavior of APFloat class?
Hi,
I've been playing around with the APFloat class lately and I came
across behavior I was not expecting based on reading the
implementation comments and I'm wondering if it's a bug or
intentional.
The behavior concerns converting an APFloat to a string and back
again. In the implementation of ``APFloat::toString(...)`` you can
specify ``FormatPrecision`` as 0. The method comments
2008 Jan 23
0
[LLVMdev] Complex constant expressions?
Talin wrote:-
> Well, I may be using it wrong. But looking at APFloat.h, I see four
> functions that purport to convert to integer:
>
> opStatus convertToInteger(integerPart *, unsigned int, bool,
> roundingMode) const;
> opStatus convertFromSignExtendedInteger(const integerPart *,
> unsigned int,
>
2008 Jan 23
4
[LLVMdev] Complex constant expressions?
Neil Booth wrote:
> Talin wrote:-
>
>> On the other hand, writing an interpreter means duplicating a lot of
>> the functionality that's already in LLVM. For example, consider just
>> the problem of float to int conversions:
>>
>> char B[ (int)3.0 ];
>>
>> Generating code for this is relatively simple; Converting
>> arbitrary-sized
2012 Sep 11
2
[LLVMdev] Build Error from Intrinsics.td
gmake[1]: Entering directory `/home/ryan/llvm/llvm_core/trunk/lib/VMCore'
llvm[1]: Building Intrinsics.gen.tmp from Intrinsics.td
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::bad_alloc'
what(): std::bad_alloc
0 llvm-tblgen 0x000000000058525f
1 llvm-tblgen 0x0000000000585719
2 libpthread.so.0 0x00002b05a7801c60
3 libc.so.6 0x00002b05a83ead05 gsignal + 53
4
2012 Apr 02
2
[LLVMdev] Build Error
I am getting a build error after doing a "make update" and then running
"make clean all":
gmake[4]: *** No rule to make target
`/home/ryan/llvm/llvm_core/trunk/Release+Asserts/lib/ocaml/llvm.cmi',
needed by
`/home/ryan/llvm/llvm_core/trunk/bindings/ocaml/transforms/ipo/Release+Asserts/llvm_ipo.cmi'.
Stop.
gmake[4]: Leaving directory
2012 Sep 11
2
[LLVMdev] Fwd: Build Error from Intrinsics.td
On 9/11/12 4:53 PM, Ryan Taylor wrote:
> Tried a fresh checkout with the same issue. I'm assuming this issue
> must be on my end.
Dumb question: do you have a restrictive ulimit setting that might cause
the tblgen program to run out of memory?
I tend to doubt that this is the case, but it'd be good to double check.
-- John T.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
2012 Sep 11
3
[LLVMdev] Fwd: Build Error from Intrinsics.td
ulimit -s = 8192
set "ulimit -c unlimited"
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote:
> John,
>
> Thanks for responding. No, I don't see a limit from ulimit. It's
> definitely with the tblgen though, I have the same errors trying to compile
> clang.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:57 PM, John Criswell
2012 Sep 11
0
[LLVMdev] Fwd: Build Error from Intrinsics.td
Tried a fresh checkout with the same issue. I'm assuming this issue must be
on my end.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:28 PM
Subject: Build Error from Intrinsics.td
To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
gmake[1]: Entering directory `/home/ryan/llvm/llvm_core/trunk/lib/VMCore'
llvm[1]: Building Intrinsics.gen.tmp
2012 Sep 11
0
[LLVMdev] Fwd: Build Error from Intrinsics.td
John,
Thanks for responding. No, I don't see a limit from ulimit. It's
definitely with the tblgen though, I have the same errors trying to compile
clang.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 2:57 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote:
> On 9/11/12 4:53 PM, Ryan Taylor wrote:
>
> Tried a fresh checkout with the same issue. I'm assuming this issue must
> be on my
2012 Sep 11
3
[LLVMdev] Fwd: Build Error from Intrinsics.td
Usually it is the ones that end in ".inc".
From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Ryan Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 3:12 PM
To: John Criswell
Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Fwd: Build Error from Intrinsics.td
What files are created by the TableGen so that I can clean them out and start fresh?
On Tue, Sep
2012 Apr 03
0
[LLVMdev] Build Error
Hi Ryan,
Sometimes the configure machinery can get confused. I haven't seen this particular error, so I don't know for sure if that's happening here, though. Try running "./config.status" from the build directory.
Perhaps unrelated, but it looks like you're building inside the source tree. I'd recommend not doing that, as it's not too uncommon for that to run
2012 Jul 10
2
[LLVMdev] Clang error compiling
llvm[1]: Compiling APFloat.cpp for Release+Asserts build
clang: TargetInfo.cpp:1778: llvm::Type
*GetX86_64ByValArgumentPair(llvm::Type *, llvm::Type *, const
llvm::TargetData &): Assertion `Lo->isIntegerTy() && "Invalid/unknown lo
type"' failed.
0 clang 0x0000000001c132ef
1 clang 0x0000000001c13804
2 libpthread.so.0 0x00002ba7d7eaec60
3
2012 Sep 11
0
[LLVMdev] Fwd: Build Error from Intrinsics.td
Here's another question. It's failing on a clean checkout, so what does
llvm use from a previous install that I would need to clean when installing
a new clean checkout?
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com>wrote:
> Usually it is the ones that end in ".inc".****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu
2012 Sep 11
0
[LLVMdev] Fwd: Build Error from Intrinsics.td
What files are created by the TableGen so that I can clean them out and
start fresh?
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote:
> ulimit -s = 8192
> set "ulimit -c unlimited"
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> Thanks for responding. No,