similar to: [LLVMdev] [LLVM 3.6.0] Metadata/Value split and RAUW.

> On 2015-Jan-19, at 12:38, Frédéric Riss <friss at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On Jan 19, 2015, at 12:04 PM, Christian Schafmeister <chris.schaf at verizon.net> wrote: >> >> >> I forgot to mention this in my initial email. >> >> The build of LLVM that I was using was commit a0d5d7aed8e177cea381b3d054d80c212ece9f2c >> The date on the

> On 2014-Nov-10, at 08:30, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 9, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >> In response to my recent commits (e.g., [1]) that changed API from >> `MDNode` to `Value`, Eric had a really interesting idea [2] -- split >> metadata entirely from the `Value` hierarchy, and

TL;DR: If you use metadata (especially if it's out-of-tree), check the numbered list of lost functionality below to see whether I'm trying to break your compiler permanently. In response to my recent commits (e.g., [1]) that changed API from `MDNode` to `Value`, Eric had a really interesting idea [2] -- split metadata entirely from the `Value` hierarchy, and drop general support for

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > > On 2015 Jan 14, at 07:58, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> > wrote: > > > >> > >> On 2015 Jan 13, at 23:59, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015

Hello, Does anyone know if it is possible to RAUW the Metadata? I took a look at the source for it and IIUC, it is not possible. What should I do to implement the RAUW for DINode (more precisely DILocation)? Thank you for your help, Son Tuan Vu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi Dan, I am trying to understand the change you made in http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=57465 In order to understand the details, I tried to revert the change but the test case still passes which is not very surprising after 6 years :(. I am seeing a related new bug that causes a load that was stashed on the NodeStack and in RecordedNodes during iSel to get

Hi, If you are familiar with LegalizeTypes I will be glad if you can help me with the following scenario. I'm debugging some ll test that fails with an assertion in "void DAGTypeLegalizer::RemapValue(SDValue &N)" because it does not expect that a remap to a new node exists. However looking at the code for a while this seems to be a valid case. I see that many times nodes are

Hello, I'm having this assertion fail when I was using DIBuilder to create the debug information: Expected no forward declarations! !719 The assertion condition is: !isa<MDNodeFwdDecl> (MD) So My questions are: 1. What is exactly the MDNodeFwdDecl ? I saw it's in the latest release 3.6.1, but I also found this link

> On 2015-Jun-02, at 11:14, Hui Zhang <wayne.huizhang at gmail.com> wrote: > > Any ideas ？ > > Thanks > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Hui Zhang <wayne.huizhang at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm having this assertion fail when I was using DIBuilder to create the debug information: > > Expected no forward declarations! > !719 >

Hello, I'm trying to extract the value out of my MDNode, but for some reason I can't. For example, if one part of the code gets an MDNode that was created as follows: Metadata* vals[2] = { ValueAsMetadata::get(&F), ValueAsMetadata::get(ConstantInt::get(context, 135)) }; MDNode* mdnode = MDNode::get(context, vals); Is it possible to extract the value of the constant int

Hi Duncan, I came across something like the following recently which I guess might be related to your recent work. Any ideas? $ clang++-tot -cc1 crash_on_invalid.cpp -g -emit-obj -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions crash_on_invalid.cpp:13:1: error: C++ requires a type specifier for all declarations x; ^ 1 error generated. *** Error in `clang++-tot': corrupted double-linked list: 0x000000000754f340

Hello. I generated in the back end by hand (in C++ code, not with TableGen) some fancy assembly code using Inline ASM expressions and if I use 2 functions in my source code (but NOT just 1 function; I will not present the functions, but each requires me to generate an Inline ASM expression) I get this error at compilation (at scheduling): BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 05:27:45PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: > +zalman at google.com > Hi Duncan, This patch plus another small change fixes the assertion failure for me. With the patch alone, the void* overload of addGarbageObject() was being used by MDNode::getTemporary(), so I had to cast the object as an MDNode*: diff --git a/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp b/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp

On Tuesday 02 March 2010 18:24:42 David Greene wrote: > On Tuesday 02 March 2010 17:58:57 David Greene wrote: > > > way to confirm this right now. Does it fix the bug you're seeing? > > > > Yep, it fixed it. > > Hmm...curiously, not all. More tomorrow. Ah, missed a spot in 2.5, which has a few more RAUW implementations. I think we're good. Thanks!

Yes, it's still respected in this case, as the only instructions that will be deleted have been RAUW with undef. Originally, all instructions where RAUW but only non-EHPad were deleted (that means EHPad were RAUW but not deleted). Then it was later patched by not RAUW token instructions and now not deleting EHPad nor token instructions. My assumption is that the instructions we wanted to

> On Oct 17, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > this seems like the classic situation where the someone comes to you asking for X, but what they really want is a solution to underlying problem Y, for which the best solution, once you actually analyze Y, is Z. On the contrary, I came into this expecting to work with Eric on parallelizing the backend,

Hello David, I am having an issue with some custom intrinsics that return a token value: InstCombine deletes the users of the token but not the instruction that creates the token itself. The IR is still valid but it's wasted. The source of the issue is coming from an old patch of yours: commit 7204cff0a121ebc770cf81f7f94679ae7324daae Author: David Majnemer <david.majnemer at

I committed: r224058 = 966942da9e68b59c31ce770e7f94c55a63482c6b r224060 = da75f7277e3a129aed8ef8aa4e0d84de40b76fd4 r224061 = f88e4c8e9171045454b2c8e05054c2af8da3fe4f Let me know if somehow you're still hitting the problem. r224061 removes leak detection entirely from `MachineInstr`. There aren't any leaks to be had there, since they're allocated in a custom allocator. They're

At least for generating DWARF the scope of of a composite type member should be irrelevant since it will always be nested inside its parent. -- adrian > On Feb 6, 2019, at 10:24 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > A good rough rule of thumb here is "what would/does Clang do?" & it looks (to me, on a very cursory glance) like Clang mostly passes the

I did not observe any assertion. In addition, the documentation ( https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#undefined-values) says: The string ‘undef’ can be used anywhere a constant is expected, and indicates that the user of the value may receive an unspecified bit-pattern. Undefined values may be of any type (other than ‘label’ or ‘ void’) and be used anywhere a constant is permitted. Either way,