[llvm-bugs] [Bug 31004] New: [inline asm] IMM operand arithmetic parsing error
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31004
Bug ID: 31004
Summary: [inline asm] IMM operand arithmetic parsing error
Product: new-bugs
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
Component: new bugs
Assignee: unassignedb...@nondot.org
Reporter: ziv.iz...@intel.com
CC: llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
Classification: Unclassified
test:
int main()
{
__asm mov eax, (~0xff | (255 & 0))
}
produces " error: unknown token in expression "
if you remove the outer () it will compile correctly:
int main()
{
__asm mov eax, ~0xff | (255 & 0)
}
there's a problem parsing the outer () in IMM operand with arithmetic
operations
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 31005] New: inline asm global registers compatibility to gcc+icc
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31005
Bug ID: 31005
Summary: inline asm global registers compatibility to gcc+icc
Product: new-bugs
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: Windows NT
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
Component: new bugs
Assignee: unassignedb...@nondot.org
Reporter: ziv.iz...@intel.com
CC: llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
Classification: Unclassified
in clang, the following lines produce an error:
register int foo asm("al");
int main() {
}
error: register 'al' unsuitable for global register variables on this target
while in gcc + icc these lines compile with a new meanning: instead of al (or
ax,eax,rax), it acts like it's all the eax register.
in clang however we get the error specified before.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 31006] New: inline asm multiline comments
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31006
Bug ID: 31006
Summary: inline asm multiline comments
Product: new-bugs
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: Windows NT
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
Component: new bugs
Assignee: unassignedb...@nondot.org
Reporter: ziv.iz...@intel.com
CC: llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
Classification: Unclassified
in inline asm, you cant write two or more sequenced comment lines (which are
notated by ";")
for example:
int main(){
__asm{
;comment1
;comment2
}
}
produces:
error: invalid instruction mnemonic 'comment2'
__asm{
^
note: instantiated into assembly here
;comment2
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 31007] New: inline asm 0bH conflict
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31007
Bug ID: 31007
Summary: inline asm 0bH conflict
Product: new-bugs
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
OS: Windows NT
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
Component: new bugs
Assignee: unassignedb...@nondot.org
Reporter: ziv.iz...@intel.com
CC: llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
Classification: Unclassified
there is a conflict in imm operands between 0b which states "binary" and H
which states "Hexa":
int main(){
__asm{
add al,0bH
}
}
clang first parses the 0b and thinks "binary" but then the H isn't a valid
character therefore generates an error.
0bH can be b in hexa, therefore it's a parsing problem.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 30894] Tonga Unreal elemental bad rendering since AMDGPU: Default to using scalar mov to materialize immediate
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30894 Andy Furniss changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #2 from Andy Furniss --- Working OK with current head. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 26762] [AVX512] Masked instruction selection gets confused by bitcasts
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26762 michael changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 30190] lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp:1439: duplicate expression ?
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30190 Simon Pilgrim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #1 from Simon Pilgrim --- Fixed by rL280215 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 30996] [META] PVS Studio Warnings
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30996 Bug 30996 depends on bug 30190, which changed state. Bug 30190 Summary: lib/Transforms/Utils/SimplifyCFG.cpp:1439: duplicate expression ? https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30190 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 28884] "Unexpected TTypeEncoding" assertion failure on EHABI when compiling with GCC
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28884 Logan Chien changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #8 from Logan Chien --- Committed as https://reviews.llvm.org/rL286760 I am closing this bug. Please let me know if this change didn't fix your problem. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 30989] [polly] Assertion `Result.isValid() && "Requested parameters for an invalid SCEV!"' failed.
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30989 Tobias Grosser changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||tob...@grosser.es Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #1 from Tobias Grosser --- Resolved in r286769. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 30979] is_constructible_v, const move_only&> explodes
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30979 Eric Fiselier changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Assignee|e...@efcs.ca|mclow.li...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Eric Fiselier --- Fixed in r286774. Assigning to @mclow so he can approve merging the fix into 3.9.1. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 30261] [Meta] 3.9.1 Merges and Bug Fixes
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30261 Bug 30261 depends on bug 30979, which changed state. Bug 30979 Summary: is_constructible_v, const move_only&> explodes https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30979 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 24941] UNREACHABLE executed at lib/Target/X86/Disassembler/X86Disassembler.cpp:379
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24941 Craig Topper changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #1 from Craig Topper --- Fixed in r286775. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 30998] MIPS make check has a bunch of machine verifier errors
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30998 Simon Dardis changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #3 from Simon Dardis --- I've checked PR/27458 against this report, the difference is CodeGen/Mips/mips64fpldst.ll failing which wasn't included in the list of failures in that bug report. It may be that when the test was updated between that bug report and this one, that the new failure occurred. Additionally, bug fixes between that report and this appear to show that we've resolved some failures without reporting them. I'm closing this as DUPLICATE, as PR/27458 was the original report listing the machine verifier failures and I'll include this information as the current state in the original report. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 27458 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 25519] [AVX-512] llc generates incorrect code
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=25519 Craig Topper changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||craig.top...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #1 from Craig Topper --- This reproducer doesn't fail anymore. I know some things with i1 and avx512 have been cleaned up in the last year so maybe this has been fixed now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 25518] [AVX-512] llc generates incorrect code
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=25518 Craig Topper changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||craig.top...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #1 from Craig Topper --- This reproducer no longer fails on trunk. Maybe its been fixed in the past year? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 25517] [AVX-512] llc generates incorrect code
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=25517 Craig Topper changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||craig.top...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME --- Comment #1 from Craig Topper --- This no longer reproduces. Perhaps its been fixed in the past year. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 30912] [X86] VBMI intrinsics fail isel if BWI instruction set is not also enabled
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30912 Craig Topper changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #1 from Craig Topper --- Fixed in r286339 and r286340. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 28850] AVX512: Invalid operand for {vcvtpd2udqy, vcvtqq2psy, vcvtuqq2psy} instruction
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28850 Craig Topper changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC||craig.top...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #4 from Craig Topper --- All issues should be fixed in r286787 and r286790. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 30357] Unexpected compile time error with vector
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30357
Eric Fiselier changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC||e...@efcs.ca
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #1 from Eric Fiselier ---
First, this isn't actually a bug in libc++. There is no requirement that
vector::reference and vector::reference be
compatible.
Additionally MSVC only accepts this code because `alloc` violates the Allocator
requirements [allocator.requirements]. Specifically it fails the requirement
that `alloc::rebind::other::rebind::other` is the same
type as `alloc`. This causes MSVC to accept your example because
`alloc::rebind::other` is the same as `std::allocator`. If you define
`alloc` as follows then MSVC will also reject your example:
```
template struct alloc : std::allocator {
template struct rebind { using other = alloc; };
};
std::vector v1(10, false);
std::vector >::reference r1 = v1[0];
```
GCC still accepts the above example, but not for any good reason.
GCC additionally allows C1::reference and C2::reference to be compatible even
when the pointer types differ. Meaning the reference type stores a raw pointer
and not a fancy pointer. AFAIK this breaks using the reference type across
segment boundaries.
So in summary it would be possible to make `C1::reference` and `C2::reference`
compatible whenever `C1::pointer` and `C2::pointer` are the same type. However
this seems unwise. IMHO attempting to use `C1::reference` and `C2::reference`
interchangeably is a bug, and libc++ is correct to reject this code. Therefore
attempting to support this behavior is just likely to cause/hide more bugs.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
llvm-bugs mailing list
llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
[llvm-bugs] [Bug 31008] New: OCaml binding memory crash
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=31008 Bug ID: 31008 Summary: OCaml binding memory crash Product: new-bugs Version: trunk Hardware: PC OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P Component: new bugs Assignee: unassignedb...@nondot.org Reporter: youngju.s...@sf.snu.ac.kr CC: llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org Classification: Unclassified According to the manual (https://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/intfc.html)'s Rule 5, block must be filled by direct assignment after "caml_alloc_small". ``` Rule 5 After a structured block (a block with tag less than No_scan_tag) is allocated with the low-level functions, all fields of this block must be filled with well-formed values before the next allocation operation. If the block has been allocated with caml_alloc_small, filling is performed by direct assignment to the fields of the block: Field(v, n) = vn; ``` However, in the code below, there does not exist such assignment. https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/bindings/ocaml /llvm/llvm_ocaml.c#L483 https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm_ocaml.c#L630 This actually led to memory crash, and following patch solved it. ``` result = caml_alloc_small(1, 0); +Field(result,0) = Val_int(0); Store_field(result, 0, caml_copy_string(C)); ``` -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ llvm-bugs mailing list llvm-bugs@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-bugs
