similar to: GlobalVariable::eraseFromParent

I recently upgraded from llvm 3.7.1 to a pre release of llvm (3.8.0rc2) in order to test some issues regarding bug 24233. After upgrading I starting to see heap corruption messages in vs 2015 sp1 when my program exits. "HEAP[ConsoleEngine.exe]: Invalid address specified to RtlValidateHeap( 0000000000290000, 0000000000318698 )" Initially I only got it in Release build. Debug build seems

I downloaded 3.8.0rc3 and I also have it in 3.8.0rc3. I did set a data access breakpoint on the first function ptr that causes the invalid heap. This would allow me to break whenever someone is touching that address. It did not show double deletes during debugging. Further more I managed to narrow it down to 2 function calls: // stupid code, but its just for triggering heap error auto func =

I made the llvm::Function() constructor public (for testing purpose) and used the non-overloaded new. auto func = ::new llvm::Function(...) if (func) func->eraseFromParent(); And the heap corruption is gone! Did something changed in llvm::User::new between 3.7.1 and 3.8.0 ? I found a bug in llvm ? On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:10 PM, koffie drinker <gekkekoe at gmail.com> wrote: > I

I found the root cause, but I don't know what's the best approach to fix it. Under windows, 64 bit, when a function is created the void *User::operator new(size_t Size) operator allocates space + Use*. In the Use* the HasHungOffUses is set to true. So the ptr to the use* is returned as new object. This ptr is NOT the ptr that was allocated by the system. For that ptr you need ptr - word

Turns out llvm initializes memory before the constructor is invoked. Visual studio has /sdl by default on, and the __autoclassinit2 will zero the memory before the constructor is reached causing all the setters to be default zero. which clears the hashungoff var and causing the delete to flow in wrong part. When /sdl is enabled, the compiler generates code to perform these checks at run time: —

Hi, Can anyone tell me if there's a straighforward way to create a new BasicBlock without inserting it into a function's basic block list? I want to do this so I can create a forward reference to a block that's position in the function is not yet known. I've tried: Function function Builder builder; bb = BasicBlock::Create(function,...) bb.eraseFromParent() ... add other

Dear sir, Thanks for your reply. I apologize for taking a few days to reply. > Crashed how? Please see the below. > Have you turned on ASan? Not yet, but thanks for the suggestion. I guess I will try to rebuild my modified Clang+LLVM with addr. san. and see what happens. > I recommend attaching a minimal reproduction... Well, since I`m hacking on LLVM itself, this is not

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 2:27 PM, James Williams <junk at giantblob.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Can anyone tell me if there's a straighforward way to create a new > BasicBlock without inserting it into a function's basic block list? I want > to do this so I can create a forward reference to a block that's position in > the function is not yet known. > > I've

Dear all, In the process of trying to add optimization for better layout of global variables, I have run up against a roadblock: I don`t seem to be able to sort the contents of a "SymbolTableListTraits<GlobalVariable>" -- or even swap two elements in that list -- without causing LLVM to crash. I have tried writing a comparator class and then using "llvm::iplist<

Hey everyone, So I have an LLVM pass that appears to run completely and work fine, and then it aborts at the very end. When exiting the final runOnFunction call, I get the following error / stack dump. I cannot figure out why this is happening for the life of me - does anyone have any ideas? I'm not trying to do any crazy deallocation or anything, it just seems like a normal pass to me.

Hi Griffin, did your pass create a data structure that holds values somehow, and forgot to delete it? Also, try running under valgrind in case this is due to a memory error of some kind. Ciao, Duncan. > So I have an LLVM pass that appears to run completely and work fine, and > then it aborts at the very end. When exiting the final runOnFunction call, > I get the following error /

For LLDB I'm writing a dumb module pass that removes all global variables, by running the following code: bool erased = true; while (erased) { erased = false; for (Module::global_iterator gi = llvm_module.global_begin(), ge = llvm_module.global_end(); gi != ge; ++gi) { GlobalVariable *global_var =

I have ran under valgrind memcheck the process using libLLVM-2.9.so (rev.126022) and got several errors: ==24227== Invalid read of size 1 ==24227== at 0x40274C9: memcpy (mc_replace_strmem.c:497) ==24227== by 0x40D5B84: char* std::string::_S_construct<char const*>(char const*, char const*, std::allocator<char> const&, std::forward_iterator_tag) (in

Hello all, I really, really, really need your help. This is my third email now, please don't ignore me! I understand this must be a trivial thing, but I've ground to a halt, and REALLY need some guidance. Please see below for the context of my problem. I'm not trying to be a waste of time, but I'm desperate here. I have a getAnalysisUsage method which does the following

The code is really simple. But I can not the reason for the segmentation fault. I only know that the eraseFromParent() function leads to it. The whole code is: ... bool runOnFunction(Function &F) override { for (auto &I : instructions(F)) { if (auto* op = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(&I)) { IRBuilder<> builder(op); Value* lhs = op->getOperand(0); Value* rhs =

Thanks Bjorn! But The problem is still there. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:04 AM, Björn Pettersson A < bjorn.a.pettersson at ericsson.com> wrote: > It looks quite dangerous to erase the instruction I inside the loop when > iterating over all instructions in the function. > I guess it depends on how the range based iterator is implemented if that > works or not. > > I think

Hi. Thanks. I changed the code but the problem exists. This is my new code which is again very simple: ... bool runOnFunction(Function &F) override { vector<Instruction *> dels; dels.clear(); for (inst_iterator It = inst_begin(&F), Ie = inst_end(&F); It != Ie;) { Instruction *I = &*(It++); if (auto* op = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(I)) { IRBuilder<NoFolder>

Using Valgrind hasn't shown me anything terribly unusual. And I'm confused because its not even trying to delete a real instruction; deleting a void type with no name? That doesn't make any sense... Any other hints? I've seen a few posts in the past about this relating to some internal LLVM bugs... -Griffin On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:26:41 +0100, Duncan Sands <baldrick at

Griffin Wright wrote: > > Hello all, > > I really, really, really need your help. This is my third email now, > please don't ignore me! I understand this must be a trivial thing, but > I've ground to a halt, and REALLY need some guidance. Please see below for > the context of my problem. I'm not trying to be a waste of time, but I'm > desperate here.

Hi. This is part of my code: ... if (auto* op = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(&I)) { Value* lhs = op->getOperand(0); Value* rhs = op->getOperand(1); Value* mul = builder.CreateMul(lhs, rhs); for (auto& U : op->uses()) { User* user = U.getUser(); user->setOperand(U.getOperandNo(), mul); } I.eraseFromParent(); } ... This leads to the following