similar to: Understanding assert in SelectionDAGBuilder.cpp

Hi everyone, It seems variable arguments is not support by mips backend in llvm-2.6. int func(int i, ...) { return 0; } llvm-gcc func.c -emit-llvm -c -O3 -o func.bc llc func.bc -relocation-model=static -march=mips -O0 -o func.s Command llc fails: llc:SelectionDAGBuilder.cpp:6440:void llvm::SelectionDAGISel::LowerArguments( llvm::BasicBlock):Assertion 'Invals.size() ==

Good to know, thanks! Currently I'm just not declaring an i8 register class since we only have load/store/convert available for that type. This works fine for most uses, but becomes a hassle when dealing with function parameters. For example, if the function argument is i8, the code in LowerFormalArguments sees it as an i16 since that is the next target legal type. For my target, we need

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:51:53PM -0400, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > Good to know, thanks! > > > > Currently I'm just not declaring an i8 register class since we only have > > load/store/convert available for that type. This works fine for most > uses, > > but becomes a

The following problems happens with architectures, where stack alignment is smaller than the biggest preferred alignment for any data type SP pointer may point anywhere with alignment of stack alignment (4 in our case) SelectionDAGBuilder however calls CreateStackObject with preferred alignment is given data type(8 in our problemaric case. The ABI alignment for this data type is only 4) This

I'm working on the code to handle GC tracing of "intermediate values" (as described in the GC doc), and I've run into a weird problem. (Note, this has nothing to do with the patch I have proposed, this error occurs with regular old pointer-allocas.) The exception I am getting occurs in this code here in SelectionDAGBuilder.cpp: *case* *Intrinsic*::gcroot: *if* (GFI) {

Hi, On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Heyu Zhu <zhu.heyu at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > It seems variable arguments is not support by mips backend in llvm-2.6. > > int func(int i, ...) { >   return 0; > } > > llvm-gcc    func.c -emit-llvm -c  -O3   -o func.bc > llc    func.bc -relocation-model=static  -march=mips -O0  -o func.s > > Command llc

Hi Talin, I think that the framework for GC assumes llvm.gcroot to be in the first block. If it is not the case in your example, it will break these assumptions. Nicolas On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm working on the code to handle GC tracing of "intermediate values" (as > described in the GC doc), and I've run into a

On Wednesday 04 Apr 2012 12:41:49 Patrik Hägglund H wrote: > Hi Tim, > > > So I've come to the conclusion that the real flaw is LLVM > > not exposing enough information to the target-dependent > > backend code for it to do the right thing. > > We also had this problem. You might find this patch useful as a starting > point:

Gert, Thank you for the feedback. Can you give any further direction on where to get more information on what you are describing? On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Gert Doering <gert at greenie.muc.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:59:57PM -0600, Lesley Kimmel wrote: > > I would like to implement an arbitrary script to be executed when logging > > on via

On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:51:53PM -0400, Justin Holewinski wrote: > Good to know, thanks! > > Currently I'm just not declaring an i8 register class since we only have > load/store/convert available for that type. This works fine for most uses, > but becomes a hassle when dealing with function parameters. For example, > if the function argument is i8, the code in

I ran into some odd code being generated today and I came across something that doesn't look quite right. In SelectionDAGBuilder::visitShuffleVector there's some code to see if we can convert the shuffle to an EXTRACT_SUBVECTOR. After computing min/max values of the mask for each operand, there's a look that looks at the ranges and determines whether an EXTRACT_SUBVECTOR can be used:

Hi Justin, This is a big weakness of the current SelectionDAG infrastructure. There's not a really clean way to do this. The legalizer assumes that if a type is "legal" at all, the target can do at least basic arithmetic on that type. Theoretically, your approach of setting the operations to "TargetLowering::Promote" for i8 should work. I think it would be reasonable to

On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:25:25PM -0400, Justin Holewinski wrote: > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 01:51:53PM -0400, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > > Good to know, thanks! > > > > > > Currently I'm just not declaring an i8 register class since we only have > > >

> I recently made a major reorganization of the calling-convention > lowering code which cleared away one of the major obstacles to > doing this within codegen. > > Dan So what was the obstacle, and how was it cleared? And how do you see the large struct return working in codegen? Anything you care to tell me would be welcome. I will be starting on this today or tomorrow.

It's been on the back-burner for awhile. I'll clean it up and post it for review soon. On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:25:25PM -0400, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at

Is there a way to define a register class that is storage-only? I want to have an i8 register class that I can use for loads/stores/converts, but that does not support arithmetic. It seems addOperationAction(ISD::ADD, MVT::i8, Promote) and SetPromotedToType(ISD::ADD, MVT::i8, MVT::i16) are not sufficient, as the legalizer just looks at whether or not the underlying type is legal (which it is).

I'm trying to track down the problem with the assertion failure in SelectionDAGBuilder.cpp. This is the code: *case* *Intrinsic*::gcroot: *if* (GFI) { *const* Value *Alloca = I.getArgOperand(0); *const* Constant *TypeMap = cast<Constant>(I.getArgOperand(1)); * FrameIndexSDNode *FI = cast<FrameIndexSDNode>(getValue(Alloca).getNode());*

Lesley Kimmel <lesley.j.kimmel at gmail.com> writes: > So I probably shouldn't have said "arbitrary" script. What I really > want to do is to present a terms of service notice (/etc/issue). But I > also want to get the user to actually confirm (by typing 'y') that > they accept. If they try to exit or type anything other than 'y' they > will be

On Sep 16, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: >> I recently made a major reorganization of the calling-convention >> lowering code which cleared away one of the major obstacles to >> doing this within codegen. >> >> Dan > > So what was the obstacle, and how was it cleared? The biggest obstacle is that there used to be two different methods for lowering

I'm trying to convert my samba3 domain to samba4 AD with samba-tool, but i'm getting an error and i can' t find anything about it on google. I've enabled the log level 4 on smb.conf and here's what i got: Home server: PANDORA init_sam_from_ldap: Entry found for user: DIRET-ESTAG$ Home server: PANDORA init_sam_from_ldap: Entry found for user: dsegato Home server: PANDORA