similar to: Identifying objects within BumpPtrAllocator.

This is a great idea! I personally also wouldn't mind going further in debug builds and actually create and store sequential IDs with the objects and take the small memory hit for improved debuggability. The `PersistentId` field in SelectionDAG works that way and has helped make the output more readable IMO. - Matthias > On Aug 28, 2018, at 5:22 PM, George Karpenkov via llvm-dev

I'll preface by saying I'm new to LLVM - I noticed there is an efficient BumpPtrAllocator - however, I can't figure out how I can allocate IR objects using that allocator. It looks like all the factory methods use regular new/delete. I'm sure someone BumpPtrAllocator is there for a good reason, and someone here has thought of this use case before. Anyone want to comment? Is

Hi Ted, Doug said you might have a clang-based checker that would detect when people allocate memory with a BumpPtrAllocator and then construct a class into it that needs destruction. In killing valgrind-found memory leaks in LLVM, I've found several instances of this mistake. They often involve SmallVectors, which only show up as leaks in valgrind if they happen to overflow their static

Pete Cooper and I have been looking at memory profiles of running llc on verify-uselistorder.lto.opt.bc (ld -save-temps dump just before CodeGen of building verify-uselistorder with -flto -g). I've attached leak-backend.patch, which we're using to make Intrustruments more accurate (instead of effectively leaking things onto BumpPtrAllocators, really leak them with malloc()). (I've

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I recently updated my version of LLVM from revision 140108 to 142082, and >> several things broke, most of which were easily fixed. However, I'm now >> getting a "pure virtual method called"

Hi, I would like to implement macro debug info support in LLVM. Below you will find 4 parts: 1. Background on what does it mean to debug macros. 2. A brief explanation on how to represent macro debug info in DWARF 4.0. 3. The suggested design. 4. A full example: Source -> AST -> LLVM IR -> DWARF. Feel free to skip first two parts if you think you know the background.

Hi All, Is there a pass in llvm that converts switch statements to if statements? George -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130506/f06741c4/attachment.html>

Hi Robert, Here is the second iteration of data frame subset patch. It now passes make check on both 2.4.0 and 2.5.0 (svn as of a few days ago). Same speedup as before. Changes: * Introduced two new functions .subassign2 and .subassign that are complimentary to .subset2 and .subset. * Changed x[[j]]<- assignment to x<-.subassign2(x, j, ..) to fix the problem with the previous patch.

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > I recently updated my version of LLVM from revision 140108 to 142082, and > several things broke, most of which were easily fixed. However, I'm now > getting a "pure virtual method called" exception (__cxa_pure_virtual) which > I wasn't getting before. This is happening in the destructor of

I recently updated my version of LLVM from revision 140108 to 142082, and several things broke, most of which were easily fixed. However, I'm now getting a "pure virtual method called" exception (__cxa_pure_virtual) which I wasn't getting before. This is happening in the destructor of a statically-initialized object. (More precisely, it's blowing up in a BumpPtrAllocator,

Interestingly, I also get a similar error in a different executable (my unittest): pure virtual method called terminate called without an active exception 0 tartc 0x00000001010a8265 PrintStackTrace(void*) + 53 1 tartc 0x00000001010a88cc SignalHandler(int) + 364 2 libSystem.B.dylib 0x00007fff831341ba _sigtramp + 26 3 libSystem.B.dylib 0x7261742e65637365 _sigtramp +

I mean an llvm Pass that transforms switch statements into if statements. For example, if I have code with switch statements then running the pass will convert all switches to ifs in the bytecode. George On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "George Baah" <georgebaah at gmail.com> > >

> Do we really need to touch the AST? Or would it be reasonable to wire up the CGDebugInfo directly to the PPCallbacks, if it isn't already? (perhaps it is already wired up for other reasons?) This sound as a good idea, I will check that approach. PPCallbacks is only an interface, has nothing connected to it, but we will create a new class, which implement PPCallbacks, for macros. So we can

Hello, Le 29/08/2019 à 01:02, Artem Dergachev a écrit : > Yay thx! > > Sylvestre, is there anything i can help you with in order to get the reports page back up? Sorry, it took me a while to get that back but here is the report of r371718: https://llvm.org/reports/scan-build/ > I'd also indeed love to spam people with warnings that they introduced, even if in the form of a

On Mar 30, 2010, at 7:51 PM, John Criswell wrote: > I'm too lazy to convert your .dot file into a graph file What format should I have posted? (I'm not sure what you mean by "graph file".) I had thought that .dot was the preferred format here, since that's what LLVM generates (e.g., "opt -dot-cfg ..."). > First, LLVM does not guarantee that a function

I wrote: > Also I wrote: > > However, xl fails on config files which are missing the final > > newline. This should be fixed for 4.2. > > My patch for this didn''t make it into 4.2 RC4. Should this go into 4.2.0 or be held for 4.2.1 (or is it not 4.2.x material at all) ? Ian. From: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> Subject: [PATCH] libxl: Tolerate xl

Hey everyone! This Summer we managed to make the Clang Static Analyzer support the LLVM and LLVM-based projects with my mentors Artem Dergachev and Gabor Horvath. For a more detailed documentation please visit my final report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o9-xEWbzivUGKIOXp9jUNZYq0mkecd5KH5dBN5Hdlu8/ The project in a nutshell: I have fixed the most annoying false positives and added

> Not necessarily, if we kept the macros in order in the list of macros attached to the CU, which I imagine we would. OK, now I understand what you are aiming for. I really do not favor one on the other. But, can you explain what is the advantage of the parent approach over the children approach? If any, the children approach seems to be the one reduces the LLVM IR size, is not it? Regards,

----- Original Message ----- > From: "George Baah" <georgebaah at gmail.com> > To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 3:09:33 PM > Subject: [LLVMdev] convert switch stmts to If statements > > > > > Hi All, Is there a pass in llvm that converts switch statements to if > statements?

> Right - I was wondering if CGDebugInfo already implemented PPCallbacks or was otherwise being notified of PPCallback related things, possibly through a layer or two of indirection. I checked the approach of skipping representing macros in AST, and communicate them directly from Parser to CGDebugInfo. However, I could not find a way to initialize this communication. The only interface