similar to: [LLVMdev] [BUG] Support for .cfi_startproc simple

Jim Grosbach wrote: > To say that another way, is the assembler correctly diagnosing a previously > unnoticed problem in the project source code, or is the assembler not > behaving correctly according the the documented Intel assembly mnemonics? Where are the authoritative instruction set pages? If such a thing were readily available, why are there gaps in the current implementation? A

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > Jim Grosbach wrote: >> To say that another way, is the assembler correctly diagnosing a previously >> unnoticed problem in the project source code, or is the assembler not >> behaving correctly according the the documented Intel assembly mnemonics? > > Where are the authoritative

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Keno Fischer <kfischer at college.harvard.edu> wrote: > This might be related to GOT relocations. I rewrote that part of > RuntimeDyldELFbecause I was seeing this issue. Have you tried trunk? > I didn't notice that you were running 3.5 the first time I read this. Keno's diagnosis is very likely to be correct. You should try trunk if

On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra > <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: >> Jim Grosbach wrote: >>> To say that another way, is the assembler correctly diagnosing a previously >>> unnoticed problem in the project source code, or is the assembler not >>>

So it appears that we get about half the crashes with the large code model. The rest are crashing in the same way. It could either mean that large code model still takes that crashing codepath and that the number of crashes only went down by chance, or that in one place in the flow, large code model is not matched to mean ELF::R_X86_64_PC64. I'm digging into this issue further, but any hints

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > The instructions btr and bts are perfectly valid, and have existed since > Intel 386. GNU as supports them fine. Unfortunately, LLVM does not > support them, and barfs with: > > error: ambiguous instructions require an explicit suffix > > Fix this problem by disambiguating it

I'm have a [PATCH] isDereferenceablePointer: look through gc.relocates and I want to know how to test this patch. So far, I've found one candiate: speculative execution in SimplifyCFG (test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/SpeculativeExec.ll). However, it's somewhat involved to show that SimplifyCFG does kick in for gc.relocate. Is there a better way to directly test it? Signed-off-by:

Hi Dale, I don't think that Keno's rewrite is applicable for a bug fix release. We have, in the last year, moved to having some dot releases for our older releases, but these are definitely bug fix only and low risk as we don't want to break anything new. The release documentation is located here: http://llvm.org/docs/HowToReleaseLLVM.html for future reference. There's no

Hi Dmitri, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra > <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: >> Add several .gitignore rules to various directories to ensure a clean >> worktree after a default build. > > Hi, > > These gitignore lists require maintenance. Is is possible to express > the same set of filenames as patterns like

Provide a full-fledged example of working variable arguments on X86_64, since it's easily the most popular platform. Cc: Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> --- docs/LangRef.rst | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/LangRef.rst

Eli Friedman wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> We were just debugging a sporadic crash the other day, when we noticed >> that RIP-relative addressing was being used in a JumpTable, even when >> code and data were well over 4G apart. This is confusing, because we >> picked

Hi, We are seeing sporadic crashes since we migrated to MCJIT on Win64. The same tests pass without issues on Mac64 and Linux64. The issue is this assertion failure in RuntimeDyldELF.c: RealOffset <= INT32_MAX && RealOffset >= INT32_MIN I haven't managed to successfully catch the failure in Visual to try and debug it. Any tips on how to make progress? Oh, and we're on

Hi, I happened to notice that linux.git uses plenty of btr and bts instructions (not btrl, btrw, btsl, btsw). For examples, see arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h. LLVM barfs on these due to ambiguity, while GNU as is fine with them. Surely, there must be architectures where the w/l variant is unavailable? LLVM must support those architectures, no? Thanks.

Hi, These warnings are included by default with -Wall in GCC 4.6 [1], and LLVM should support them instead of throwing -Wunknown-warning-option. [1]: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/porting_to.html Thanks.

Hi, When I pulled the latest changes, I found that --enable-optimized was ON by default, contrary to old behavior and documentation. I have to do a ./configure --disable-optimized to get the usual Debug+Asserts build. Is this an intentional change? Ram

Really sorry I missed this. Just found it looking for something else in my inbox. I think we should support this but * We should still err on other identifiers ".cfi_startport bar" is invalid. * If I read the gas documentation correctly, the effect of "simple" is to skip the initial cfi instructions. We should test if that is the case and implement it too. Accepting and

Philip Reames wrote: > T.M.K., there's no direct way to test it. There is. See the 'unittests/' directory which contains the C++ unit tests. See unittests/IR/UserTest.cpp for an example that builds up IR from a .ll-in-a-C-string then queries C++ API operations on it. Nick You have to construct a > transformation which happens with the information you added and not >

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > Eli Friedman wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra via llvm-dev > > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> We were just debugging a sporadic crash the other day, when we noticed > >> that RIP-relative addressing was being used in a

1c54d77 (x86: partial unification of asm-x86/bitops.h, 2008-01-30) changed a bunch of btrl/btsl instructions to btr/bts, with the following justification: The inline assembly for the bit operations has been changed to remove explicit sizing hints on the instructions, so the assembler will pick the appropriate instruction forms depending on the architecture and the context. Unfortunately,

Jim Grosbach wrote: > Also, please elaborate on why this is a good change. Because gas accepts it > isn’t sufficient reason in and of itself. That they're valid instructions isn't sufficient reason? Should I additionally say that linux.git uses them? I wrote: > The instructions btr and bts are perfectly valid, and have existed since > Intel 386.