similar to: [LLVMdev] DwarfDebug problems

Thanks for the quick response. I wrote some code to search “llvm.dbg.cu” for the function (right before the failed assertion): if (TheCU == nullptr) { errs() << "compile unit: " << TheCU << "\n scopeNode(" << FnScope->getScopeNode() << ") => " << *FnScope->getScopeNode() << "\n"; auto fn =

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Brandon Holt <bholt at cs.washington.edu> wrote: > In a pass I’m working on, I’ve done some manipulation of several functions, replacing them with new copies with different types, etc. > > The LLVM IR passes the verifier, but when I have debug symbols enabled (“-g”), I get the following error when Clang generates the Dwarf info (using a very recent

In your transform I'd take a look at things like the individual basic blocks you're replacing and the functions you're replacing and making sure that the various lexical blocks are being changed at the same time... -eric On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:12 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Brandon Holt <bholt at

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Brandon Holt <bholt at cs.washington.edu> wrote: > Thanks for the quick response. > > I wrote some code to search “llvm.dbg.cu” for the function (right before the > failed assertion): > > if (TheCU == nullptr) { > errs() << "compile unit: " << TheCU << "\n scopeNode(" << >

How do I find and update the lexical blocks? Is, for example, “CloneFunction” doing this in a way I can copy? I tried finding the subprogram node in “llvm.dbg.cu” and updating the function: DISubprogram s(*subprog_iter); if (s.getFunction() == F) { s.replaceFunction(NF); } But this didn’t seem to have any effect. Do I need to do something similar with every basic block or something? On Dec

We have a test case where we are hitting an assertion in the X86 code generator. The assertion is: "Assertion failed: TheCU && "Unable to find compile unit!", file .\..\..\..\lib\CodeGen\AsmPrinter\DwarfDebug.cpp, line 1411" The bitcode is attached. What I am trying to figure out is what is malformed about our debug that is causing this error? This is reproducible

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Nov 8, 2010, at 10:52 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Devang Patel < <dpatel at apple.com> >> dpatel at apple.com> wrote:

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 8, 2010, at 10:52 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Devang Patel < <dpatel at apple.com> > dpatel at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 6, 2010, at 7:35 PM, Talin wrote: >> >> After to speaking to Devang

I collected a sequence of LLVM instructions, want to make a copy of each and insert them into a PREVIOUS location inside the same function (all globals and locals are properly declared before the PREVIOUS location). Here is the list of instructions I want to duplicate and insert: 0 %90 = load i32* @strstart, align 4 1 %91 = add i32 %90, 2 2 %88 = load i32* @ins_h, align 4 3 %92 =

Hi Chuck, > std::vector<Instruction *>::iterator p; > Instruction * pi = PREVIOUS_POSITION; > BasicBlock * pb = PREVIOUS_POSITION->getParent(); > > for(p = coll.begin(); p != coll.end(); ++p){ > Instruction * CurI = * p; > Instruction * CloneI = CurI->clone(); clone doesn't know have any magical way of knowing that it should update the instruction's

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 David, I'm seeing an assertion failure when passing this node !{i32 786454, metadata <badref>, metadata <badref>, metadata !"fn_t", i32 5, i64 0, i64 0, i64 0, i32 0, metadata <badref>} ; [ DW_TAG_typedef ] [fn_t] [line 5, size 0, align 0, offset 0] [from ] as the function type parameter to DIBuilder::createFunction, due to this check in DebugInfo.cpp:

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi David, I'm seeing an assertion failure when passing this node > > !{i32 786454, metadata <badref>, metadata <badref>, metadata !"fn_t", i32 > 5, i64 0, i64 0, i64 0, i32 0, metadata <badref>} ; [ DW_TAG_typedef ] > [fn_t] [line 5, size 0, align 0, offset 0] [from ]

Hi, I want to copy some dependent statements, like a = b, b = c, from one basicblock to another basicblocks. Because of SSA, a = b, will be like %1 = load %b, store %1, %a. If I just use clone() method in Instruction class, it will be like <badref> = load %b, store <badref>, %a. If I need remap the virtual registers, this map just will affect the whole module? And how to use it? I am

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

Hi Arsen, we are beyond what I understand about how metadata operates. Maybe Adrian or David knows. --paulr From: Arsen Hakobyan [mailto:hakobyan.ars at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 12:16 PM To: Robinson, Paul Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; David Blaikie Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] StripDeadDebugInfo for static inline functions. Just one update: the function causing the segmentation

Hi Paul, Thanks for your response. Let me actually post more details visualizing my case. Assuming that can help. so the IR before the opt tool is running is: ; Function Attrs: nounwind define i16 @main() #0 !dbg !13 { entry: %retval = alloca i16, align 1 ... } ; Function Attrs: inlinehint nounwind define internal void @delay(i16 %d) #4 !dbg !69 { entry: %d.addr = alloca i16,

Hi Eric, On 10/04/13 00:20, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> Hi David, I'm seeing an assertion failure when passing this node >> >> !{i32 786454, metadata <badref>, metadata <badref>, metadata !"fn_t", i32 >> 5, i64 0, i64 0, i64 0, i32 0, metadata <badref>} ;

<div>Need help about Alias Analysis.</div><div>I try to detect use-after-free debug in source code. And my analysis is based on LLVM IR.</div><div>I use the following code as a small example. I want to get the result p&&q are alias.</div><div>//uaf.cpp</div><div><div>#include<iostream></div><div>using namespace

Just one update: the function causing the segmentation fault is the following: 359 void DwarfDebug::constructAbstractSubprogramScopeDIE(LexicalScope *Scope) { 360 assert(Scope && Scope->getScopeNode()); 361 assert(Scope->isAbstractScope()); 362 assert(!Scope->getInlinedAt()); 363 364 const MDNode *SP = Scope->getScopeNode(); 365 366