The XPL compiler produced the attached OneOfEach.bc file without error or warning from either LLVM or XPLC. However when I llvm-dis the file, I get:
llvm-dis: Failed value look-up for name ‘entry’
The Bytecode Reader prints this out when it can’t find the associated value for the name. Obviously I botched something in the XPL compiler but I would have thought the verified would catch my mistake before writing the byte code.
The patch to the Reader.cpp file that I sent you earlier added the “for name ‘entry’” part to the output. Unfortunately, this doesn’t help because my source input doesn’t have a symbol named “entry”.
Any hints?
<i>On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Reid Spencer wrote:
> Would you like me to send the patches to sabre@nondot.org or have you
> seen them already?
I haven't seen them. Feel free to send them my way :)
-Chris</i>
The XPL compiler produced the attached OneOfEach.bc file without error
or warning from either LLVM or XPLC. However when I llvm-dis the file, I
get:
llvm-dis: Failed value look-up for name 'entry'
I'm guessing that 'entry' is a basic block?
The Bytecode Reader prints this out when it can't find the associated
value for the name. Obviously I botched something in the XPL compiler
but I would have thought the verified would catch my mistake before
writing the byte code.
It should! It probably is missing a check somewhere... once you find the
problem, it would be helpful to make sure that the verifier catches that
problem in the future...
The patch to the Reader.cpp file that I sent you earlier added the "for
name 'entry'" part to the output. Unfortunately, this doesn't help
because my source input doesn't have a symbol named "entry".
Any hints?
My completely speculative *guess* is that you are using a basic block as
an operand to an instruction that does not expect it. You can't add two
basic blocks together, and I would guess the verifier doesn't check for
this. The only place where basic blocks can appear is in PHI nodes and
terminators.
I just checked this patch into the Verifier. Maybe it will help?
--- Verifier.cpp 14 Mar 2004 03:23:54 -0000 1.88
+++ Verifier.cpp 29 Mar 2004 00:27:29 -0000
@@ -493,6 +493,11 @@
Assert1(I.getType() != Type::VoidTy || !I.hasName(),
"Instruction has a name, but provides a void value!", &I);
+ // Check that the return value of the instruction is either void or a legal
+ // value type.
+ Assert1(I.getType() == Type::VoidTy || I.getType()->isFirstClassType(),
+ "Instruction returns a non-scalar type!", &I);
I just found “entry”. Its the name I gave a basic block at the start of the function (name was hard coded in the compiler, not the source). The issue here is probably that the block doesn’t have a terminating instruction. However, that fact used to be caught well by the validator. Furthermore, the output from the byte code reader is a little confusing given the source of the problem.
Has something broken recently? This has been happening with the 1.2 release. I cvs updated today and rebuild LLVM but it still happens.
Reid.
The XPL compiler produced the attached OneOfEach.bc file without error or warning from either LLVM or XPLC. However when I llvm-dis the file, I get:
llvm-dis: Failed value look-up for name ‘entry’
The Bytecode Reader prints this out when it can’t find the associated value for the name. Obviously I botched something in the XPL compiler but I would have thought the verified would catch my mistake before writing the byte code.
The patch to the Reader.cpp file that I sent you earlier added the “for name ‘entry’” part to the output. Unfortunately, this doesn’t help because my source input doesn’t have a symbol named “entry”.
Any hints?
On Sun, 2004-03-28 at 15:58, Chris Lattner wrote:
<i>On Sun, 28 Mar 2004, Reid Spencer wrote:
> Would you like me to send the patches to sabre@nondot.org or have you
> seen them already?
I haven't seen them. Feel free to send them my way :)
-Chris</i>