similar to: [LLVMdev] Avoid Valgrind's still-reachable leak warnings

I am trying to figure out how to free up some memory that seems to be lost when running valgrind under our internal application. The stack traces I get are: ==19966== 4 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 1 of 12 ==19966== at 0x402569A: operator new(unsigned int) (vg_replace_malloc.c:255) ==19966== by 0x5D9BBE8: void* llvm::object_creator<llvm::PassRegistry>()

Hi, We use LLVM libraries to compile C++ code and noticed slow downs when multiple threads of a process were compiling at once. *perf *indicated that most of the CPU time was spent in a spin lock, which was being locked/unlocked from llvm::PassRegistry::getPassInfo(). We read the relevant LLVM code and found out that PassRegistry is a ManagedStatic and is shared among all threads in case of a

I've hit this weird compiler error when building llvm/clang $ clang --version clang version 2.9 (trunk 125254) Target: x86_64-apple-darwin10 Thread model: posix Source rev is 125326 $ make llvm[1]: Compiling APFloat.cpp for Release build llvm[1]: Compiling APInt.cpp for Release build llvm[1]: Compiling APSInt.cpp for Release build llvm[1]: Compiling Allocator.cpp for Release build llvm[1]:

> On 2014 Dec 10, at 08:40, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:22:16PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >> The `Metadata`/`Value` split (PR21532) landed in r223802 -- at least, the >> C++ side of it. This was a rocky day, but I suppose that's what I get >> for failing to stage the change in smaller pieces. >>

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 05:27:45PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: > +zalman at google.com > Hi Duncan, This patch plus another small change fixes the assertion failure for me. With the patch alone, the void* overload of addGarbageObject() was being used by MDNode::getTemporary(), so I had to cast the object as an MDNode*: diff --git a/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp b/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp

> On 2014 Dec 10, at 14:08, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:21:08AM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >> >>> On 2014 Dec 10, at 08:40, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:22:16PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >>>> The `Metadata`/`Value`

I committed: r224058 = 966942da9e68b59c31ce770e7f94c55a63482c6b r224060 = da75f7277e3a129aed8ef8aa4e0d84de40b76fd4 r224061 = f88e4c8e9171045454b2c8e05054c2af8da3fe4f Let me know if somehow you're still hitting the problem. r224061 removes leak detection entirely from `MachineInstr`. There aren't any leaks to be had there, since they're allocated in a custom allocator. They're

> On Aug 7, 2015, at 12:32 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com <mailto:peter_cooper at apple.com>> wrote: > I’ve almost finished a patch to add back in either out of line destructors or anchor methods. We seem to use one or the one, relatively inconsistently. >

I’ve almost finished a patch to add back in either out of line destructors or anchor methods. We seem to use one or the one, relatively inconsistently. What i’ve gone for is that if a class already had an inline destructor then i left it alone and added an anchor method. Otherwise I added an out of line destructor. Now if I compile Instructions.cpp with -Wweak-vtable, the only warnings given

Hi, I am trying to parallize the lli interpreter (code: http://pastebin.com/6iuHNH3Q). I am using ubuntu 12.04 with llvm version 3.1. Each thread uses a seperate LLVMContext, however the interpreter continues to crash. $ clang -S -emit-llvm test.c && parallel_lli test.s Error msg: ..../include/llvm/Support/Mutex.h:116: bool llvm::sys::SmartMutex<true>::release(): Assertion

Hi, I am trying to parallize the lli interpreter (code: http://pastebin.com/6iuHNH3Q). I am using ubuntu 12.04 with llvm version 3.1. Each thread uses a seperate LLVMContext, however the interpreter continues to crash. Error msg: ..../include/llvm/Support/Mutex.h:116: bool llvm::sys::SmartMutex<true>::release(): Assertion `((recursive && acquired) || (acquired == 1)) &&

The `Metadata`/`Value` split (PR21532) landed in r223802 -- at least, the C++ side of it. This was a rocky day, but I suppose that's what I get for failing to stage the change in smaller pieces. As of r223916 (lldb), I'm not aware of any remaining (in-tree) breakage, so if I've missed some problem in the sea of buildbot errors, please flag me down. I'll follow up soon with

Hi Ruben, Try adding a --build=x86_64-gnu-linux option to configure as well. I don't have that configuration locally, so I can't check to be certain, but IIRC, our configure wants all three for a cross compile like this. -Jim On Aug 21, 2011, at 7:19 AM, Ruben Van Boxem wrote: > Hi, > > I'm getting a returning build failure when building a linux->windows >

Hi, I'm getting a returning build failure when building a linux->windows crosscompiler out of LLVM/Clang. Attached is config.log and below is the output of "make VERBOSE=1" llvm[2]: Linking Release executable FileCheck (without symbols) g++ -I/home/ruben/mingw-w64/toolchain/linux64mingw64/llvm-clang/include

Hi, I'm trying to build llvm on a Solaris/Sparc machine. I get many undefined symbols during the link phase of opt. The link command being run is below. It is identical to the link command that gets run and works on an x86 host. Thanks, Tarun g++ -I/n/fs/scratch/tpondich/ParallelAssert/llvm-objects/include -I/n/fs/scratch/tpondich/ParallelAssert/llvm-objects/tools/opt

On 7 November 2011 22:00, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > We are starting on our third (and hopefully last) round of testing for LLVM 3.0. Please visit: > >        http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.0/rc3/ > > for the sources. There are also binaries for Darwin up there, with > more to come during the week. Please build this release candidate, > test it out

Hello. I am trying to copy an entire directory structure from a Unix box to an NT share using a command like this: tar -c -h -O /usr/local/sh | smbclient //ntstldls01/rs8724$ -Tx - -D chico -U myuser%mypasswd The problem is it chokes when it hits a file with 2 links (hard links - not sym links). I am using "-h" with tar to try to force it to copy the file rather than the link, but

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:04 PM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > [Ooops, sent to the old list address by mistake] > > > > On 30 Jul 2015, at 21:04, tom at stellard.net wrote: > >> > >> For flags like

Right, I'm suggesting we keep llvm_shutdown() for users who want this control, but also destroy still-live ManagedStatic instances if llvm_shutdown() is not called. This helps in the case where there is not a clear time when llvm_shutdown() can be called, especially given that LLVM cannot be resurrected in the same process due to current limitations in the pass registry, and perhaps

I'm curious about the design rationale for how ManagedStatic instances are cleaned up, and I'm hoping someone can shed some light on it. Currently, ManagedStatic objects are cleaned up when llvm_shutdown() traverses the global list of initialized objects and calls destroy() on each. This leads to two questions: 1. An assertion enforces that the objects are deleted in reverse order of