similar to: [LLVMdev] Removing contention in PassRegistry accesses to speed up compiles

Hello all, I'm trying to compile the 2.6.5 tarball on a non-developer system (a freshly installed OpenIndiana zone). Right away the make failed due to revision checks (fixed below) due to missing git and svn software (and for make, a failed step fails everything). The fix is to catch the non-zero return codes and just successfully set an empty string. Barring this, the default

Hello, i just tried to write some passes and in one of them i want to delete a call Instruction. I can identify the specific Instruction without a problem, but when i put the delete operation in the code i always get a error message while running opt. I already tried to rename my pass, but without any change. Another question i have is: why do i always get the "opt: CommandLine Error:"

We have root caused the segfault - it was due to a caching layer we have in our code, which is to avoid duplicate compilations. Basically, llvm::JIT::getPointerToFunction() looks up PassRegistry, but as our change introduces a separate PassRegistry for each thread, this means that the thread that calls llvm::JIT::getPointerToFunction() should have appropriate PassRegistry setup. In our setup, some

This is the patch to include SVN revision level in version number displays. There should be two enclosures; the patch itself and a new source file. common/upsversion.c. upversion.c defines a single function. upsversion(), that returns a version string for display. Some Makefile trickery ensures that this file will be recompiled whenever the project's SVN revision level has changed since it

Can you provide a complete reproducible example? Sent from my iPhone > On May 1, 2016, at 6:51 AM, Peter Ruckdeschel <peter.ruckdeschel at web.de> wrote: > > Hi r-devels, > > we are seeing a new problem with our packages RobAStRDA (just new on CRAN, thanks > to Uwe and Kurt!) and RobExtremes (to be submitted). > > It must be something recent with the way you

Hi r-devels, we are seeing a new problem with our packages RobAStRDA (just new on CRAN, thanks to Uwe and Kurt!) and RobExtremes (to be submitted). It must be something recent with the way you internally treat/store byte-code compiled functions, as we have no problems with R-3.1.3, but do see an "Error in fct(x) : byte code version mismatch" with R-devel SVNrev r70532. Background:

I just noticed this warning from the autoreconf portion of the buildbot log: autoreconf: running: automake --no-force include/Makefile.am:9: shell unset LANG && svnversion -n $(top_srcdir: non-POSIX variable name include/Makefile.am:9: (probably a GNU make extension) include/Makefile.am:10: shell if test "$(SVNREV: non-POSIX variable name include/Makefile.am:10: (probably a GNU make

I can't reproduce the more complex version. But the package on CRAN fails in the same way on 3.2.3 and 3.3.0. The problem is that your sysdata.rda includes a function that is generating this error. If you do f <- getFromNamespace(".RMXE", ns ="RobAStRDA")[["GEVFamily"]][["fun.N"]][[1]] g <- get("fct", environment(f)) and look at the

Thanks, Luke, for having a look to it. Sure, I can give you some reproducible example -- even in two degrees of completeness ;-): see below. Thanks again, Peter %----------------------------------- (I) first example %----------------------------------- Just to reproduce the error, on r-devel, try: install.packages("RobAStRDA") require(RobAStRDA) getFromNamespace(".RMXE", ns

Hello, I am editing the LowerTypeTests pass in LLVM, and part of my additions include the following 3 lines of code: // newTypeName is a std::string MDString* newMD = MDString::get(M.getContext(), newTypeName); ArrayRef<Metadata*> mdArray {ConstantInt::get(Int64Ty, 0), newMD}; auto* node = MDTuple::get(M.getContext(), mdArray); Thus far, I have been developing on a version of Clang with

HI, Developers: I linked libLTO.so in $LLVMROOT/Debug/lib however, my program crashes in assertion at 149line [Pass.cpp] void RegisterPass(const PassInfo &PI) { bool Inserted = PassInfoMap.insert(std::make_pair(PI.getTypeInfo(),&PI)).second; assert(Inserted && "Pass registered multiple times!"); } i confirm that there is only one static variable

Hi Charles, while finishing the Testing release, I faced an autoreconf issue on Testing, linked to the below change (to its non application on Testing in fact): include/Makefile.am:9: shell unset LANG && svnversion -n $(top_srcdir: non-POSIX variable name include/Makefile.am:9: (probably a GNU make extension) include/Makefile.am:10: shell if test "$(SVNREV: non-POSIX variable name

Hi all, I am trying to write a pass for the llc tool. I register this pass with the RegisterLLC template. However, when I try to run llc and load up the pass, I get a failed assertion: $ /storage/anshuman/llvmCVS/llvm/tools/Debug/llc -load=./libTest.so --help ... ... llc: Pass.cpp:327: void llvm::RegisterPassBase::unregisterPass(llvm::PassInfo*): Assertion `I != PassInfoMap->end()

I agree that the ArrayRef is likely the issue. I've debugged a crash caused by a temporary ArrayRef like that a couple times. Either do what David suggested or use a normal array: Metadata *mdArray[] = {ConstantInt::get(Int64Ty, 0), newMD}; ~Craig On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 9:56 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Michael McCracken wrote: > On Aug 5, 2004, at 8:11 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > Sure, you can do that. Just use F->getParent() to get to the Module. > > D'oh. OK, so I can do what I need with a hack for now. Ok. > > We have no problem with people asking questions. :) The PassManager > > is actually do for a rewrite. The current

On Aug 5, 2004, at 8:11 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > Sure, you can do that. Just use F->getParent() to get to the Module. D'oh. OK, so I can do what I need with a hack for now. >> Also, out of curiosity, why the stateless restriction - is it because >> passes may someday be run in parallel? > > Yup, exactly. That and we want to be able to make multiple instances

On Aug 9, 2004, at 1:46 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> Well, I took a look at it a bit over the weekend. I am probably not >> the >> right person to do the complete rewrite, for instance reworking the >> Pass class hierarchy doesn't sound like something I'd want to do. Just >> getting to this point has been a bit of an education in real C++. > > Ok, fair

If the TargetData pass isn't registered in the global registry, getPassInfo() returns null. Now when you add a TargetData pass, it winds up in ImmutablePasses. Any search through ImmutablePasses assumes that getPassInfo() for every member returns something other than null. So findAnalysisPass for *any* analysis pass can crash the system if the TargetData pass is lurking in the list without

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 20, 2009, at 10:13 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: >>> Unfortunately, yes.  See PR4542.  Progress has been made recently >>> though -- the optimizers are now ready.  The main things left to do

Sorry in advance for the stupid question, i still don’t understand some concepts like passes. I took a piece of code from llc, and I used it to write a function that creates an object (or assembly) file from an IR module. It compiles without any problems. But program crashes when it reaches add() method of the pass manager. Can you help me figuring out what’s the problem please? here is my