similar to: Instruction not in sequence

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Vitor Luis Menezes <vitor at utexas.edu> wrote: > We've got the following test case: > > > class A { > public: >   int x; >   A(int x) : x(x) {} >   int hoo() {return 4;} >   virtual int foo() {return x;} >   virtual int goo() {return foo()+10;} >   virtual int operator+(A &a) { >     return x + a.x; >   } > };

To reproduce the issue, please use the command line "opt -simplifycfg filename". target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128" target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" %struct.G = type { %struct.ordered_index_node*, i32 } %struct.ordered_index_node = type { %struct.B, %struct.F } %struct.B = type { i32 } %struct.F = type { i32*, i32* }

We've got the following test case: class A { public: int x; A(int x) : x(x) {} int hoo() {return 4;} virtual int foo() {return x;} virtual int goo() {return foo()+10;} virtual int operator+(A &a) { return x + a.x; } }; class B : public A { public: B(int x) : A(x) {} int hoo() {return 2;} virtual int foo() {return A::foo()*2;} }; int main() { A* a = new A(1);

The if you are cloning into the same LLVM module the CU should not cloned. If don't mind sharing your code, I can try to help diagnose why the CU gets cloned... just send me a patch that applies to trunk and instructions. -- adrian > On Jun 16, 2017, at 1:54 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > Sorry… It takes a pass that was not accepted for upstreaming….

Hi, The phase of instruction combine cannot handle the instruction %4 = select i1 %tobool.i, metadata !12, metadata !10 generated by the phase of CFG simplification and the compiler generates an assertion failure. I wonder whether this is valid LLVM IR: %4 = select i1 %tobool.i, metadata !12, metadata !10 Before CFGSimplify cond.true.i: ; preds = %entry

- old Keno +current Keno > On Jun 19, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > In your example the instructions in the cloned function have debug locations belonging to a different function, and the function itself is missing a DISubprogram metadata attachment. > >> (lldb) p OldFunc->dump() >> >> ; Function Attrs: nounwind optsize

How do I tell the optimizer that the (dereferenced) value of an i8** parameter is NULL at the start so that it can eliminate the check? I have code like: void test2(void** ex) { printf("go\n"); // does not change *ex } void call2(void** ex); void testeh(void** ex) { // I want to tell the optimizer *ex is null so it can eliminate the first

I was just going to say: With well-formed debug info it should create a deep copy up until the DISubprogram, but no further. But because the DISubprogram linked to the Function is missing the special handling of the DISubprogram (that would prohibit cloning the DICompileUnit is side-stepped). But then I remembered the discussion we had in

Hi! We are currently working on a science project and implemented a FunctionPass that clones a function (more precisely a constructor of a struct/class) and adds a parameter. First, we create a new function with a new function type, which includes the newly added parameter: Function *NF = Function::Create(NewFTy, F.getLinkage(), F.getName() + "Cloned", F.getParent()); and after

Hello, While instrumenting LLVM IR in ThreadSanitizer (race detector), I need to distinguish between a store to vtable pointer (vptr) and any other regular store. This special treatment should be limited to class DTORs, so I should also know when a function is a DTOR. Rationale: need to distinguish benign and harmful races on vptr (

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Vitor Luis Menezes <vitor at utexas.edu> wrote: >> We've got the following test case: >> >> >> class A { >> public: >>   int x; >>   A(int x) : x(x) {} >>   int hoo() {return 4;} >>   virtual int foo() {return x;}

This all looks very similar to a bug in the cloning stuff I fixed recently, so would be indeed good to know if this is still happening on master. On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > If you are doing this work based off LLVM trunk, could you send me your > patch to reproduce the problem? > > -- adrian > > On

Can you send me a patch with instructions to reproduce? I can take a look. -- adrian > On Jun 15, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > Yes, it does for us. My tree is couple days off the tip, and I see it there. > > Sergei > > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Keno Fischer via llvm-dev > Sent:

On Mar 19, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > Hello, > > While instrumenting LLVM IR in ThreadSanitizer (race detector), I need to distinguish between a store to vtable pointer (vptr) and any other regular store. > This special treatment should be limited to class DTORs, so I should also know when a function is a DTOR. > Rationale: need to distinguish benign and

Hi there, I'm having trouble getting ExecutionEngine->runStaticConstructorsDestructors(module, true) to actually trigger static destructors in my code. The static constructors however do get called. I don't know if this is an LLVM or Clang issue, from looking at the IR (see below) it looks like the destructor is being tied to cxa_atexit, and I wonder if that is not called by

Can you send the IR you are using? Volkan On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:28 AM Erdem Derebaşoğlu < erdemderebasoglu at hotmail.com> wrote: > Thanks. I enabled my pass. I have one resolved issue though: > MachineMemOperand::getAddrSpace() always returns zero. How can I use it to > distinguish private memory accesses? > > Erdem > > ------------------------------ > From:

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Graham Wakefield <wakefield at mat.ucsb.edu> wrote: > Hi there, > > I'm having trouble getting ExecutionEngine->runStaticConstructorsDestructors(module, true) to actually trigger static destructors in my code. The static constructors however do get called. > > I don't know if this is an LLVM or Clang issue, from looking at the IR (see

hi,chen: thaks for your explaining,after reading it i have a few problems more. 1.in the sentenses of "X32: subl $-128, %eax" and "; X64: subl $-128," ,i do not know what means that in detail,these sentences were writen follow which language rules? 2.i want to write such a test:translate a *.ll(i.e:hello.ll) file to a *.c file(i.e:hello.c) with llc,then verify if the .c

I'm not sure whether this is the exact problem at hand in your example, but one of the major hurdles llvm suffers when trying to devirtualize is the second point you made: it doesn't see the invariance of the table pointer post construction. In your specific example the constructors are trivial and inlinable so it I'm not sure why llvm would be having trouble proving the value of the

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > Hello, > > While instrumenting LLVM IR in ThreadSanitizer (race detector), I need > to distinguish between a store to vtable pointer (vptr) and any other > regular store. > This special treatment should be limited to class DTORs, so I should also > know when a function is a DTOR. >