Hi Jeff, Pekka,
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 01:21:23PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Here is a testcase that should get into the mailing list archives...
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [problem] sparse llvm loop conditions
> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:56:25 +0200
> From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Have you seen this already?
>
> [penberg@tux sparse]$ cat loop.c
> struct list_node {
> struct list_node *next;
> };
>
> int foo(struct list_node *node)
> {
> int ret = 0;
> while (node) {
> node = node->next;
> ret++;
> }
> return ret;
> }
> [penberg@tux sparse]$ ./sparse-llvm loop.c
> loop.c:5:5: warning: symbol 'foo' was not declared. Should it be static?
> sparse-llvm: Instructions.cpp:730: void llvm::BranchInst::AssertOK():
> Assertion `getCondition()->getType()->isIntegerTy(1) && "May only
> branch on boolean predicates!"' failed.
> Aborted
>
> Pekka
With my patchset of today, sparse-llvm compiles this code. It turned out
that struct accesses didn't work, because the address computed for
load/store instructions didn't have the right LLVM type.
[ On a side note, array access doesn't work yet. ]
regards,
Jonathan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
