Met "clang-16: error: clang frontend command failed with exit code 134 (use -v to see invocation)" #61220
Comments
EugeneZelenko
added
clang:static analyzer
crash
|
@llvm/issue-subscribers-clang-static-analyzer |
|
The error message indicates that the assertion To check if this is the case, you can run the If increasing the limit does not resolve the issue, you may need to investigate further by checking the Clang debug output or searching for similar issues. |
|
@TheInferentialImp Sorry, but after I used the |
|
I'm sorry about that! The error message you received indicates an assertion failure in the preferred_buffer_size function of raw_fd_ostream.cpp. This function is called by the ExplodedGraphEmiter::checkEndAnalysis function, which is part of the Clang Static Analyzer's debugging checker. It's hard to say exactly what's causing the problem without more information, but it seems like there may be an issue with opening a file or writing to a file. You might try checking if the file you're trying to write to is accessible or if there are any permission issues. Another thing you can try is to redirect the output of the command to a file. For example, you can run the command clang --analyze -Xanalyzer -analyzer-checker=debug.ViewExplodedGraph test.c > output.txt to redirect the output to a file called output.txt. This might help you to see if there are any error messages that are not being displayed on the console. If none of these solutions work, you might try posting a more detailed error message or a stack trace of the error so that others can help you better. |
Thank you so much for giving a such detailed advice! It means a lot to me as a beginner. Your advice is very helpful, after checking more error messages, it seems that there were some errors when I compiled and installed my checke to the local llvm-project following the internship instructions (which used By the way, the commands I used for compiling and installing my own checker are as shown below: // Copy my checker's cpp file to llvm-project/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers and add its information into Checkers.td & CMakeLists
cd llvm-project/build
cmake -G "Unix Makefiles" -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON
../llvm -DLLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS="clang;clang-tools-extra;openmp;lldb;lld"
make
make installDoes these steps have anything wrong? If anything, I may need to contact someone to update the manual, or I will take a closer look at the checker. |
|
I'm always happy to help brother. I'm glad you were able to achieve your original goal. Firstly, by the looks it seems that based on the error message you provided: It appears that there is a segmentation fault happening in your code. A segmentation fault occurs when your program tries to access a memory location that it is not allowed to access, often due to memory corruption or null pointer dereferencing. To debug this issue, you can try running your program under a debugger, such as gdb or lldb, and seeing where the segmentation fault is occurring. Once you have identified the location of the error, you can try to fix the issue by checking for null pointers or ensuring that you are not accessing memory outside of its allocated bounds. In addition, you can try using memory analysis tools such as Valgrind to help identify any memory issues in your code. These tools can help you find common memory-related issues, such as memory leaks or invalid memory accesses. Finally, it may be helpful to review your code and see if there are any areas where you may be inadvertently accessing memory incorrectly. It's possible that you are dereferencing a null pointer or accessing an array or pointer beyond its allocated bounds. To answer your question regarding the error message when you tried to run your command: The reason why clang --analyze -Xanalyzer -analyzer-checker=debug.ViewExplodedGraph test.c does not work and analyze -Xanalyzer -analyzer-checker=debug.ViewExplodedGraph test.c works might be due to a difference in the way the clang and analyze commands are executed. The clang command is the driver program for the Clang compiler, which invokes the various components of the compiler to preprocess, compile, and link C and C++ source code. When you run clang --analyze, you are asking the Clang compiler to perform a static analysis of the source code, but it may not necessarily know about the debug.ViewExplodedGraph checker. On the other hand, the analyze command is a utility program that is included with the Clang Static Analyzer. It is specifically designed to run static analysis on C and C++ source code, and it knows about the various checkers that are available, including the debug.ViewExplodedGraph checker. So, when you run analyze -Xanalyzer -analyzer-checker=debug.ViewExplodedGraph test.c, you are invoking the Clang Static Analyzer with the debug.ViewExplodedGraph checker enabled. This allows the Static Analyzer to generate an exploded graph of the program's execution, which can be viewed using the dot command. In summary, the clang command may not necessarily know about the debug.ViewExplodedGraph checker, whereas the analyze command is specifically designed to run the Clang Static Analyzer and includes the checker by default. Please feel free to reach out with any other questions. |
Thanks for your explanation! Especially for the part about the difference between 2 commands. :) I still have a lot to learn in order to position the TRUE error more clearly. Yes, I will also be more careful to use gdb and other tools to find out if there are any internal problems in my code. Now I can close the issue. In addition: Thank you very much for your help, I seldom encounter such friendly discussion atmosphere in my study career. I'm very glad to learn all these things. |
|
Don't be afraid to ask questions. Also, follow me on GitHub (you'd be my first follower and I'd be honored!) and we'll stay in touch! I am happy you feel better about the community. We all have A LOT to learn as the world is always changing. I'm really happy I was able to help you understand more clearly! I know knowledge sharing can be a little tough sometimes but I believe its the key to success especially in a collaborative environment like this. |
|
@GwokHiujin The user you were talking with was using ChatGPT to generate those responses. You should probably re-post your question on the llvm discourse or discord to get an actually informed answer. |
|
@ADKaster Actually, not all of my responses are generated using ChatGPT (A.I.) which is literally not an issue at all because of the fact that it is very informative and quite accurate in many cases. I applaud using other resources and forums but to say my answer wasn't informed is a throwing a bit of shade. I don't think that attitude will get your far FYI. If you didn't read the thread, he was able to solve his issue and learn. |
@ADKaster Really? Thanks for reminding me about this! But the reason I closed this issue is simply that I can now successfully export the files I need. As a conversation model with information gathering capabilities, ChatGPT does provide some help lol. I'm in the process of locating the problem within the checker (I think it's probably unlikely to be a bug in the analysis engine itself), and if I have any new questions, I'll raise a new issue for help. In the meantime I've reopened this issue to see if there are any different suggestions to my previous problem. (Because of network problems in my area, there seems to be a duplicate switch operation, and I apologize for that 😢 ) Thank you all very much for your help. |
|
Yeah, interesting, I don't immediately know what happened in the original case, but it doesn't sound like an error in your checker, and it doesn't sound like anything specific to code under analysis. Your So I suspect that, indeed, something weird was going on in your system, like unwritable The graph dumping facility probably doesn't have great error handling, because it's not considered to be part of the user interface, it's just a fancy debug print, so it's usually not much trouble if it crashes instead of presenting a fancy error message. If you used |
|
With respect to ChatGPT replies, well, they're so-so. The advice to attach a debugger is solid. The advice to run clang under valgrind is really questionable as this is most likely not a memory error, and even if it was, there are better tools to find it (such as, well, AddressSanitizer). The problem is most likely in your actual system, no need to simulate anything in order to debug it. The difference between clang driver and frontend invocations, as well as different frontend actions, is always good to know, but it's very much irrelevant to the issue and misleading; there's nothing wrong with compiler flags, and even if there was, ideally misused flags alone shouldn't lead to a crash. |
|
In regards to your last point, it is noted, I didn’t think about that until now and that could be useful in the future. Thanks for your kind input |
|
So overall, I wouldn't mind ChatGPT visiting our bug tracker and issuing replies, marked as "I'm a robot, beep boop" or some other way to point out that the commenter isn't the project's maintainer, and simply providing an opinion. But just like every human, it needs at least some way to underline the level of confidence behind its statements (repeatedly answer the question "why do you think this is true?"). So that it didn't look as if an actual expert is replying, when the reply is actually pointing the reader in a completely wrong direction. In this case it wasn't too bad, but I can't expect it to happen every time. See how I'm doing it - I didn't deliberately do it for this reply, it's just a matter of habit for me:
So I'm trying to make "minimal" statements, so that they were as likely to be true as possible, I clearly separate facts from speculation, for the facts I try to provide evidence, and even when I speculate, I offer ways to prove or disprove the speculation by asking for more data from the user. ChatGPT replies, on the contrary, are filled with 100% confidence. It talks as if it's absolutely certain of everything it says, and that it's actually relevant to the issue at hand. Whereas I, one of like 10 people in the world who actually know best what's going on, am full of doubt. ChatGPT should be doing more of that confidence un-projection thing. Or at least come with a clear upfront warning that the entire reply doesn't have very high confidence. |
|
Wow, I truly thank you for taking the time to write that. It offered me great advice and introspection for the past, present, and future. You are 100% right. But are you really one of the ten people in the world who actually knows best what’s going on? I assume you mean Clang. That’s awesome, its an honor speaking with you and again, I appreciate the thoughtful constructive, non aggressive response. Just here to help and learn! |
|
Well, yes, I'm a maintainer of the clang static analyzer. I'm not the person who created it, but I've spent quite a lot of time on it throughout like half of its history. Exploded graph dumping is my favorite debugging tool that I use almost every time I do anything with the static analyzer; I'm probably the most active user of this debugging tool in the world and I spent quite a bit of time improving it, as well as popularizing it. I'm also replying to a large portion of bug reports coming in to static analyzer, and mailing list threads, and I read most of them at least briefly. So when I'm saying that the problem is unusual and sounds like something special is going on with the system, I have some experience to back it up. If this problem was popular, I'd have been hearing a lot more about it. It could totally be something else, such as a problem that affects an entire specific linux distribution/version, specific configurations of those distributions, or it could be a problem that temporarily showed up in clang-15 and disappeared almost instantly after, so I never noticed it (as unlike a few other maintainers, I rarely use llvm.org's official released clang versions). I haven't actually looked at the low-level implementation of graph dumps, which connects to the actual file system So that's the extent of my doubt and how it translates to properly annotated confidence in replies. It's perfectly ok to reply with lesser confidence than that, we totally encourage it. But ideally it should be expressed accordingly, with honesty about your actual confidence. |
Yes, I came to a similar conclusion after checking my own program this afternoon with others. I actually had a lot of unexpected frontend crashed problems installing llvm-project on my ubuntu VM before ( Such as And @TheInferentialImp , I'm pretty sure @haoNoQ is really one of the MOST knowledgeable people in the world about CSA -- If you visit the llvm community regularly, you will often see constructive statements from him, as well as genuine interaction with the community users, which means you don't have to question the authority of his answers. In fact , seeing that this somewhat silly issue has generated so much discussion, I have gained much more than the issue itself. |
As one of the main clang-frontend screeners I 💯 object to this in any way shape or form. We get a lot of traffic and folks are expecting expert replies. Are users are also often very busy trying to deal with and working around issues and asking them and the screeners to deal with the extra traffic of what will be responses of questionable value is not ok. i expect discourse is probably the right place to have this discussion if needed but I don't believe it is appropriate for folks to post chatgpt replies to these bugs. |
Strong +1; I consider use of GPT to generate comments or issues to be counter-productive, akin to getting some kinds of spam. (Edited to be more constructive) |
|
This is comedic. “Malicious behavior that’s indistinguishable from other forms of spam.” Hilarious. Embrace new things, don’t hate them. Might get you a little farther. |
I think the biggest impact for me, the issue raiser, is this: I (and other beginners) who already need to ask experts for help here due to lack of technical skills can have a hard time distinguishing the TRUE VALUE of such A.I. generated answers -- at first I didn't even notice that the other person used GPT to answer me. This is obviously not conducive discovering the real cause of the problem, and may even be misdirected in an irrelevant direction -- especially if the problem is solved by mistake like what I have done. And @TheInferentialImp , I don't think your latest reply of is appropriate. I believe you meant NO harm in using AI to answer me about this issue in the first place, and it's also true that GPT Model is a cutting-edge technology that we can't ignore. It may help you become a better developer through information-gathering skills, but it can't replace original work, such as the work that these talented and experienced people you are mocking have selflessly done for the open source community over the years. But what I can say for sure is that if a person cannot have a sense of reverence and respect for another person's professionalism, AI can at least quickly take their place in someone's mind -- I was very grateful for "your" reply (even if it didn't really help me solve the problem) just because the attitude of that reply was so sincere and kind that it deeply touched me. And unfortunately, your latest reply didn't show the same good emotional qualities as the AI's. Maybe their wording is a little more drastic, but believe me, they will be the last people on earth who are afraid of AI taking their jobs away. |
|
Why be so aggressive? Absolutely unproductive. Yeah I’m sure these guys aren’t worried about A.I. taking their jobs but why not at least consider its usage in some cases? Malicious? Hilarious. I’ve been absolutely nothing but kind and respectful until I was told I was spreading malicious information. In regard to reverence, where was that when he spoke of my desire to contribute with helpful intent as spreading malicious information. Sorry I’m not expert with 20 years of experience, I tried to use some resources to help. This should be a discussion but not geared toward making me feel like I did something negative. |
|
It is disrespectful to use GPT to file comments without any understanding of whether the comment is helpful, unhelpful, or even relevant to the discussion. It wastes everyone's time, and this is at least the third issue on which you've been asked to stop this behavior. When the comments are effectively generated by a smart autocomplete, it is indistinguishable from spam. It could be helpful, it could be introducing a security vulnerability, or anything in between. The people you are interacting with should not have to guess at whether a human was involved in the generation of that content or not. |
@TheInferentialImp The main problem is that it is not immediately apparent (unless someone is knowledgeable about the patterns ChatGPT uses to generate the responses) that it is a machine-generated answer. There are two problems here, the first one is confidence, and the other one might be copyright-related. You are posting some other entity's (whether it is capable of holding copyright on its own is debatable...) "intellectual work" (as much as a matrix transformation can be considered "intelligence") under your own name. This is misappropriation and might even be considered plagiarism in different contexts. |
@GwokHiujin What was the actual solution to the problem, though? (Considering the discussion is swamped with unrelated issues.) You could not have enough file descriptors open due to system limits? |
|
@whisperity Another comedic response. If you do a simple google search you’ll find that “As a result, the user owns the output generated by GPT models, subject to the terms and conditions of the license agreement and compliance with all applicable laws.” In addition, it can be simply noted that going forward this is not to be done, in addition in regards to Aaron’s comment, I’ve used it in many cases outside of this thread with great feedback and results, none as negative as this. Also, I was told to not use it in regards to a function I didn’t understand how to create and this was after I’d already posted responses, and got a response in regards to the issue being solved. |
@whisperity Hello. This experience of yours is very inspiring to me, thank you! About this issue, ultimately I think it was a disk space issue (which the system didn't warn me about) that caused the file system But then I remembered that once I also suspected a disk problem, so I manually expanded the VM disk and followed the steps in the internship program's manual to re-install llvm-project many times -- without solving the problem. So I followed @haoNoQ 's advice to just introduce the clang project with However, to verify that it really solved it, I will try to reproduce the commands that raised errors on the old version of clang (the scenario where the origin problem occurred), and also try to install the intern-project checkers I wrote on this version (without using the configuration commands provided by the intern-project, but with a more lightweight one) to see if the problem still arises. Thank you each and every one of you for the effort you put into this insignificant little problem. |
|
@TheInferentialImp, ChatGPT is generally available and users that find its answers helpful can ask it directly. I don't see a need for anyone to be manually directing it towards these discussions. If you want to use it yourself and then relay information that you have confirmed to be accurate, that would be appreciated and helpful. As others have noted, please include attribution with such posts. I do look forward to a day where we can trust the information provided by these tools to be accurate or appropriately moderated, but the industry hasn't reached that point yet. |
|
Fair point, @tahonermann. Cheers. |
|
Yes, as @tahonermann said, I think one of the prerequisites for using A.I. to solve a problem is that the user has the ability and technical background to tell on their own whether the answer is HELPFUL and correct, so it may not be appropriate to use it to answer someone else's question - you can't tell if they have that ability. By "helpful" I don't just mean simply making the error message disappear in the command line terminal, but also discovering the root cause of the problem and sharing experience & tips on how to deal with it in friendly communication. For now, I think only communication with a real person can satisfy these needs well. If you are only using it to help yourself , I think a model with strong information retrieval skills is somewhat beneficial for technical improvement. And when you use A.I. to answer someone's question, you should mark it up so that they can better evaluate the credibility and professionalism of the answer. I'm not personally an opponent of A.I. technology, I'm even doing research on NLP. That's why I think we need to evaluate the use of AI carefully and in a reasonable way. In fact, I think this is a rather complex issue of computer ethics, and I was FAR from expecting it to go in this direction of discussion when I proposed this issue. 😢 Many thanks to everyone who has offered me help, both with real people and with silent AI models. I hope it's time to stop the discussion that has little thing to do with the original topic. |
@TheInferentialImp Also, I would like to apologize for your previous mention that my response may have been aggressive. I am not a native English speaker, so sometimes the wording may be a bit inappropriate. Please believe that all I am doing is trying to maintain a peaceful discussion and resolve my issue. I am just a junior undergraduate computer science major (Perhaps similar to your situation) , and we all have a lot to learn in the technical field compared to these experienced seniors. I don't doubt your sincerity in helping me, but staying humble is as important as embracing new technology, and perhaps you should be more judicious in the use of current controversial ChatGPT in the future. As it is mentioned above, such information from unknown sources does mislead learners to some extent, this kind of uncertainty is the root cause of Aaron's belief that it is indistinguishable from spam. Imagine that when you personally answering a question in an area you are already very familiar with, you should also carefully weigh your content to prevent misinformation. This applies to this unexpected discussion as well -- everyone just wants to keep the Q&A efficient and quality. I hope we can all contribute higher quality answers and academic achievements in our areas of interest in the future, and I thank you for your answers and sincerity. :) |
It's not clear if you're referring to me (I think you might have been), but I'll step up and say I'm sorry for my use of the word "malicious" -- I wasn't meaning to make a value judgement about your intent. I'll edit my comment to be less aggressive. |
|
@tahonermann 's reply resonates with me:
IMO the bar should be that while folks can totally use whatever tools they like to compose their communication (web search, translator, thesaurus, generative model, ...) they need to be able to verify the result. |
Recently I'm trying to learn how to develop checkers for Clang Static Analyzer. The Clang version is:
However when debugging a quite simple C program using Clang debug checker, I encountered the code 134 problem as described in the title. The example program is shown below:
Then, I use command
clang --analyze -Xanalyzer -analyzer-checker=debug.ViewExplodedGraph test.cto visualize the analysis, CSA gives these reported errors:Actually, the Clang frontend issue occurs no matter what source program I use for testing and no matter what debug checker I choose. Even if simple command like
clang --analyze test.cfailed with this. I suspect there is an error in my compiled environment, but I don't know how to troubleshoot it. As a beginner, I can't quite understand the valid information in the error report.I compiled and installed LLVM by cloning the latest (last December) llvm-project from this repository and then using the following code.
Environment:
Background:
I compiled and installed Clang manually through the tutorial on the LLVM website, which means I have installed the necessary packages such as
build-essential.I really want to know how to eliminate this problem.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: