Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SPARC and IA64 backend: assertion fails when compiling switch-case #1775

Closed
llvmbot opened this issue May 9, 2007 · 4 comments
Closed

SPARC and IA64 backend: assertion fails when compiling switch-case #1775

llvmbot opened this issue May 9, 2007 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@llvmbot
Copy link
Collaborator

@llvmbot llvmbot commented May 9, 2007

Bugzilla Link 1403
Resolution FIXED
Resolved on Feb 22, 2010 12:49
Version unspecified
OS Linux
Attachments testcase to reproduce the assertion, llc debug output
Reporter LLVM Bugzilla Contributor
CC @asl

Extended Description

The following assertion fails with 2.0 CVS branch when compiling a simple
switch-case with four cases. At least IA64 and Sparc backends are affected.
Compiles fine with x86 and PPC backends.

llc: SelectionDAGISel.cpp:1626: bool
llvm::SelectionDAGLowering::handleBTSplitSwitchCase(llvm::SelectionDAGLowering::CaseRec&,
std::vector<llvm::SelectionDAGLowering::CaseRec,
std::allocatorllvm::SelectionDAGLowering::CaseRec >&, llvm::Value*,
llvm::MachineBasicBlock*): Assertion `(FMetric > 0) && "Should handle dense
range earlier!"' failed.

@llvmbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@llvmbot llvmbot commented May 9, 2007

assigned to @asl

@asl
Copy link
Collaborator

@asl asl commented May 9, 2007

Mine

@asl
Copy link
Collaborator

@asl asl commented May 9, 2007

I suppose, the problem is that there are no jump tables on these systems, am I
right?

@llvmbot llvmbot transferred this issue from llvm/llvm-bugzilla-archive Dec 3, 2021
This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
2 participants