similar to: [LLVMdev] Adding 2 APInts

Hi all, I'm experimenting with the Interpreter and all look good so far :) Unfortunately when I play with the visitBinartOperator() method I have the following assertion error: Support/APInt.cpp:233: llvm::APInt llvm::APInt::operator*(const llvm::APInt &) const: Assertion `BitWidth == RHS.BitWidth && "Bit widths must be the same"' failed. I have recompiled llvm and

I'm breaking this out from LLVM asserts thread. Here are all the assertions in APInt I consider should be recoverable: APInt::APInt: bitwidth too small Null pointer detected! APInt::getBitsNeeded: Invalid string length string is only a minus! Invalid radix APInt::fromString: Radix should be 2, 8, 10, or 16! Invalid string length string is only a minus Insufficient bit width Invalid digit in

Hi list, I am writing a pass that requires simplification, constant propagation and folding to be performed before my pass is run. How can i accomplish this? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131108/60282dca/attachment.html>

Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to InstructionSimplify.cpp, not InstCombineSelect.cpp? On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > Hi Hans - > > Yes, I think this is a good patch for 3.9 (cc'ing David Majnemer as code > owner). The functional change was

Sanjay: let me know if this is something that will apply to 3.9. Thanks, Hans On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Quick update - the bug existed before I refactored that chunk in > InstSimplify with: > https://reviews.llvm.org/rL275911 > > In fact, as discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D22537 - because we have a

David, Sanjay: ping? On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? > > Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to > InstructionSimplify.cpp, not InstCombineSelect.cpp? > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: >> Hi

LGTM On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > David, Sanjay: ping? > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? > > > > Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to > >

Thanks for notifying me. Yes, this was a recent change. Taking a look now. On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Michael Kuperstein <mkuper at google.com> wrote: > +Sanjay, who touched this last. :-) > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Ismail Badawi (ibadawi) via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> I'm hitting the

Hi folks, I'm hitting the below assertion failure when compiling this small piece of C code (repro.c, attached). My command line is: bin/clang --target=aarch64-linux-gnu -c -O2 repro.c clang is built from top of trunk as of this morning. It only happens at -O2, and it doesn't happen with the default target (x86_64). I tried to reproduce using just 'llc -O2' but didn't

Hi, Has anyone had any success with running different PassManagers on llvm::Modules they've already JITed and are executing? In detail: 1) getting the IR, in form of an llvm::Module 2) calling PassManager->run() on the module 3) calling getFunction() and getPointerToFunction() to JIT the module 4) executing the JITed code using the function pointer received in step 3 and then what I

On Aug 19, 2009, at 9:36 PM, Erick Tryzelaar wrote: > I'm breaking this out from LLVM asserts thread. Here are all the > assertions in APInt I consider should be recoverable: > > APInt::APInt: > bitwidth too small > Null pointer detected! Hi Eric, As we discussed on IRC, I don't think there is any reason for the implementation of these methods to check these

Now that I'm working on codegen support for arbitrary precision integers (think i36 or i129), I've hit the problem of what getTypeSize and friends should return for such integers (the current implementations seem to me to be wrong). However it's not clear to me how getTypeSize and friends are defined. There seem to be several possible meanings for the size of a type (only talking

Hi, Pondering the code for StrongSIV and trying to write my own, I find I have many questions. In this code, for example, * if (isa<SCEVConstant>(delta) && isa<SCEVConstant>(srcCoeff)) { const SCEVConstant *constDelta = cast<SCEVConstant>(delta); const SCEVConstant *constCoeff = cast<SCEVConstant>(srcCoeff); APInt distance, remainder;

Hi, I found the following wiki page in the Unladen Swallow project: http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/wiki/CodeLifecycle This would appear to answer my question. Could someone confirm for me if it's definitely unsafe to attempt to optimise/JIT any Modules while a different thread is currently executing a JITed function which has been generated from them? Or am I just missing

On Oct 7, 2007, at 11:23 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Now that I'm working on codegen support for arbitrary precision > integers (think i36 or i129), I've hit the problem of what > getTypeSize and friends should return for such integers (the > current implementations seem to me to be wrong). However it's > not clear to me how getTypeSize and friends are defined. > >

Hi Stephen, I confirm your observation. AFAIK the current JIT keeps informations from the module, for example AssertingHandle on Values. It's part of my plan to make the MCJIT independent from Module stuff to allow reoptimizations, or to have multiple copies of JITed functions for one function in the module, but there is a long road to go. Olivier. On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Stephen

Stuart Hastings a écrit : > > { > {0x00000000}, {0x33800000}, {0x34000000}, {0x34400000}, > {0x34800000}, {0x34a00000}, {0x34c00000}, {0x34e00000}, > {0x35000000}, {0x35100000}, {0x35200000}, {0x35300000}, > {0x35400000}, {0x35500000}, {0x35600000}, {0x35700000}, > ... > {0xfffd8000}, {0xfffda000}, {0xfffdc000}, {0xfffde000}, > {0xfffe0000},

Does llvm have a pass that minimizes the bitwidth of llvm instructions? For instance:   %8 = and i32 %7, 63 63 is 111111 in binary. So the 'and' instruction only requires 6 bits. We could rewrite the above code as:   %8 = trunc i32 %7 to i6   %9 = and i6 %8, 63 Since we only need the lower 6 bits we could also propagate this change backwards to reduce the bitwidth of prior

On May 24, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On May 24, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: >> Let us know if you would like extra eyes on the two PPC failures. >> Many >> of us have a lot of experience with C++. :-) Do you know where these >> allocations are? > > I don't mind if people help out, so here's some information: Nice!

I'm working on a bug where LLVM takes over six minutes to compile a module. After some hand-editing, the module looks like this: class half { private: union uif { unsigned int i; float f; }; static const uif _toFloat[1 << 16]; }; const half::uif half::_toFloat[1 << 16] = { {0x00000000}, {0x33800000}, {0x34000000}, {0x34400000}, {0x34800000},