similar to: Assertion error in APInt.cpp

I'm breaking this out from LLVM asserts thread. Here are all the assertions in APInt I consider should be recoverable: APInt::APInt: bitwidth too small Null pointer detected! APInt::getBitsNeeded: Invalid string length string is only a minus! Invalid radix APInt::fromString: Radix should be 2, 8, 10, or 16! Invalid string length string is only a minus Insufficient bit width Invalid digit in

On Aug 19, 2009, at 11:19 PM, Erick Tryzelaar wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Chris Lattner<clattner at apple.com> > wrote: >> >> As we discussed on IRC, I don't think there is any reason for the >> implementation of these methods to check these invariants. These >> are clear >> API invariants that the caller can check if needbe.

Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to InstructionSimplify.cpp, not InstCombineSelect.cpp? On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > Hi Hans - > > Yes, I think this is a good patch for 3.9 (cc'ing David Majnemer as code > owner). The functional change was

Sanjay: let me know if this is something that will apply to 3.9. Thanks, Hans On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Quick update - the bug existed before I refactored that chunk in > InstSimplify with: > https://reviews.llvm.org/rL275911 > > In fact, as discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D22537 - because we have a

David, Sanjay: ping? On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? > > Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to > InstructionSimplify.cpp, not InstCombineSelect.cpp? > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: >> Hi

LGTM On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > David, Sanjay: ping? > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? > > > > Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to > >

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Chris Lattner<clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > As we discussed on IRC, I don't think there is any reason for the > implementation of these methods to check these invariants.  These are clear > API invariants that the caller can check if needbe.  Making the > implementation check these will slow down clients which are known to be well >

Hi! We are compiling a very large C project in llvm and trying to execute it in interpreter. There is a problem with executing the generated bitcode. We are using lli.exe and llvm-gcc.exe from official 2.6 LLVM release. We have localized the problem to following c code: -------------------- int f(unsigned char x) __attribute__((noinline)); int f(unsigned char x) { return x - 1; } int main()

Thanks for notifying me. Yes, this was a recent change. Taking a look now. On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Michael Kuperstein <mkuper at google.com> wrote: > +Sanjay, who touched this last. :-) > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Ismail Badawi (ibadawi) via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> I'm hitting the

Hi folks, I'm hitting the below assertion failure when compiling this small piece of C code (repro.c, attached). My command line is: bin/clang --target=aarch64-linux-gnu -c -O2 repro.c clang is built from top of trunk as of this morning. It only happens at -O2, and it doesn't happen with the default target (x86_64). I tried to reproduce using just 'llc -O2' but didn't

Hi, Has anyone had any success with running different PassManagers on llvm::Modules they've already JITed and are executing? In detail: 1) getting the IR, in form of an llvm::Module 2) calling PassManager->run() on the module 3) calling getFunction() and getPointerToFunction() to JIT the module 4) executing the JITed code using the function pointer received in step 3 and then what I

I've been debugging some strange happenings over here and I put an assert in APInt to catch what I think is the source of the problem: int64_t getSExtValue() const { // An i1 -1 is unrepresentable. assert(BitWidth != 1 && "Signed i1 value is not representable!"); To me an i1 -1 makes no sense whatsoever. It is not representable in twos-complement form. It cannot

I tried the following: - ConstantInt::get(Type::getInt64Ty(Ctx), APInt(0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, 64, false)) - ConstantInt::get(Type::getInt64Ty(Ctx), APInt(-1, 64)) I am receiving the following error: Assertion `NumBits <= MAX_INT_BITS && "bitwidth too large" failed -- Thanks & Regards, Dipanjan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

Hello, This simple patch fixes PR9112: Index: lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp =================================================================== --- lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp (revision 125281) +++ lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp (working copy) @@ -593,6 +593,8 @@ // Otherwise take the unions of the known bit sets of the operands, // taking conservative care to avoid

Hi, I found the following wiki page in the Unladen Swallow project: http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/wiki/CodeLifecycle This would appear to answer my question. Could someone confirm for me if it's definitely unsafe to attempt to optimise/JIT any Modules while a different thread is currently executing a JITed function which has been generated from them? Or am I just missing

On May 24, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On May 24, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: >> Let us know if you would like extra eyes on the two PPC failures. >> Many >> of us have a lot of experience with C++. :-) Do you know where these >> allocations are? > > I don't mind if people help out, so here's some information: Nice!

Kristaps Straupe wrote: > Hi! > > We are compiling a very large C project in llvm and trying to execute > it in interpreter. There is a problem with executing the generated > bitcode. The interpreter is under-maintained in general, but this bug in particular is fixed SVN as-of r86428. Are you on a platform that isn't supported by llvm's jit? Nick > We are using

On Aug 19, 2009, at 9:36 PM, Erick Tryzelaar wrote: > I'm breaking this out from LLVM asserts thread. Here are all the > assertions in APInt I consider should be recoverable: > > APInt::APInt: > bitwidth too small > Null pointer detected! Hi Eric, As we discussed on IRC, I don't think there is any reason for the implementation of these methods to check these

Hi, Scalar evolution seems to be wrapping around the trip count in the following loop. void add (int *restrict a, int *restrict b, int *restrict c) { char i; for (i = 0; i < 255; i++) a[i] = b[i] + c[i]; } When I run scalar evolution on the bit code, I get a backedge-taken count which is obviously wrong. $> cat loop.ll ; Function Attrs: nounwind define void @add(i32* noalias

Hi Stephen, I confirm your observation. AFAIK the current JIT keeps informations from the module, for example AssertingHandle on Values. It's part of my plan to make the MCJIT independent from Module stuff to allow reoptimizations, or to have multiple copies of JITed functions for one function in the module, but there is a long road to go. Olivier. On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Stephen