similar to: [LLVMdev] Inlined call properly optimized, but not function itself

I'm having an issue where a certain set of types and insert/extractvalue are producing the incorrect values. It appears as though extractvalue getting my sub-structure is not getting the correct data. I have these types: %outer = type { i32, %inner, i1 } %inner = type { double, i32 } The trouble is that when I have a value of type %outer then proceed to extract the components of the

I also saw this issue before. Llvm seems have trouble returning general struct values from functions. One easy workaround is to use packed struct type. Hope this helps. -Peng On Sunday, December 30, 2012, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > I'm having an issue where a certain set of types and insert/extractvalue > are producing the incorrect values. It appears as though extractvalue >

edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > I'm having trouble figuring out what the error "Instruction does not > dominate all uses!" means. I'm trying to construct a call to a function > with two parameters. The printed IR, with error, looks like this: > > define i32 @add(i32, i32) { > EntryBlock: > %2 = add i32 %0, %1 > ret i32 %2 > } > > define i32

I can confirm that if I generate the value directly (not via a return) then the expected values are extracted from the structure. So it is perhaps a return value issue. On 30/12/12 19:04, Peng Cheng wrote: > I also saw this issue before. Llvm seems have trouble returning general > struct values from functions. One easy workaround is to use packed > struct type. > > Hope this

I'm having trouble figuring out what the error "Instruction does not dominate all uses!" means. I'm trying to construct a call to a function with two parameters. The printed IR, with error, looks like this: define i32 @add(i32, i32) { EntryBlock: %2 = add i32 %0, %1 ret i32 %2 } define i32 @eval_expr() { EntryBlock: ret i32 <badref> } Instruction does not dominate

Hi edA-qa mort-ora-y, On 02/11/12 10:20, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > I'm having trouble figuring out what the error "Instruction does not > dominate all uses!" means. I'm trying to construct a call to a function > with two parameters. The printed IR, with error, looks like this: > > define i32 @add(i32, i32) { > EntryBlock: > %2 = add i32 %0, %1 >

I'm having some trouble getting access to a global variable with getPointerToGlobal. The resulting value is not what I am expecting. My assembly looks something like this: @gresult = global i32 undef define i32 @eval_expr() { entry: ... store i32 %3, i32* @gresult ret i32 %3 } Where "gresult" is created with: auto global = new llvm::GlobalVariable( *module, int32Type,

I'm getting the following error when trying to SDIV integers greater than 128bit (on an AMD64 target). LegalizeIntegerTypes.cpp:2047: void llvm::DAGTypeLegalizer::ExpandIntRes_SDIV(llvm::SDNode*, llvm::SDValue&, llvm::SDValue&): Assertion `LC != RTLIB::UNKNOWN_LIBCALL && "Unsupported SDIV!"' failed. Stack dump: 0. Running pass 'X86 DAG->DAG

Hi, On 24/02/13 06:48, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > Which optimizer would remove duplicate, or unneeded loads? In my > generator I end up having a lot of the same load. For example here I > keep loading "@pt" which will always be the same value. in order to do this, the optimizers need to know that the call to @trace_integer does not modify the contents of @pt. Is it logically

Which optimizer would remove duplicate, or unneeded loads? In my generator I end up having a lot of the same load. For example here I keep loading "@pt" which will always be the same value. %16 = load %1** @pt, align 8 %17 = getelementptr inbounds %1* %16, i64 0, i32 2, i32 0 %18 = load i32* %17, align 4 call void @trace_integer(i32 %18) %19 = load %1** @pt, align 8 %20 =

If I create a function in a module with: auto f = module->getOrInsertFunction( "eval_expr", ...) //create function Then later I link this with other modules: Linker link; link.LinkInModule( base_module ); link.LinkInModule( module ); Then I create an execution engine something like: auto ee = EngineBuilder( link.getModule() )...create(); If I attempt to run the function

Hi, Integer overflow checks often use divisions, which may hurt performance. See also http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48580 Here's a prototype implementation of two passes that complement -instcombine. They recognize common checking patterns and rewrite them using overflow intrinsics. https://gist.github.com/3429064 https://gist.github.com/3429069 Here goes an example.

Okay, I've think I understand now. By using a "Value" object (like a function call) in another instruction does nothing more than use a reference to that value. It is still my responsibility to ensure that value/reference is actually created prior to its use in the block. On 02/11/12 12:16, Nick Lewycky wrote: > edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: >> I'm having trouble figuring

Hi Bill, Thanks for working on this. Is there a reference for the function attribute uwtable, or is it to be defined as part of this effort? Thanks in advance Garrison On Jul 23, 2011, at 1:29, Bill Wendling wrote: > What? Yet another EH proposal?! This one is different from the others in that > I'm planning to start implementing this shortly. But I want your feedback! I've

On Oct 17, 2013, at 7:24 PM, edA-qa mort-ora-y <eda-qa at disemia.com> wrote: > On 17/10/13 23:57, Bill Wendling wrote: >> There shouldn't be any special linker flags you need to use. If >> you're getting segfaults, it's probably trying to access the data at >> an invalid location or something. Make sure that your EH table is >> properly aligned. You

Hi Reid, I've been working on the outlining code and have a prototype that produces what I want for a simple case. Now I'm thinking about the heuristics for recognizing the various logical pieces for C++ exception handling code and removing them once they’ve been cloned. I've been working from various comments you've made earlier in this thread, and I'd like to run something

On 17/10/13 23:57, Bill Wendling wrote: > There shouldn't be any special linker flags you need to use. If > you're getting segfaults, it's probably trying to access the data at > an invalid location or something. Make sure that your EH table is > properly aligned. You might want to hand calculate the values to make > sure that they're correct. What platform are you

I'm getting an error that I don't know how to fix. I've isolated the input as much as I easily can. I've attached the file that produces the problem. Just calling "llc err.ll -o err.s" generates the error. I'm going to try and isolate even further, but as I'm not sure what I'm looking for I don't know if I'll be successful. Does anybody know what this

Hi, On 11/04/13 06:06, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > I have some exception handling which works fine using the JIT. Now I am > producing object files and linking them, but the exception handling > tables seem to be missing. I call _Unwind_RaiseException and get > _URC_END_OF_STACK as a result. you will get this if no catch clauses match (eg because there are no catch clauses, perhaps

I'm having trouble figuring out how to export/import IR functions at the C++ API level. I think I've got the linking part figured out, but I need to get the functions exporting from one module into another. I see how I can iterate over the functions in one, but I'm not clear on how to expose this name/reference into the other module. Is there a simple example/tutorial of this