I'm working on a programming language, writing the compiler in rust. I'm stuck at this point from a segfault that occurs with the following IR (generated by my compiler):

; ModuleID = 'main'
source_filename = "main"

define void @main() {
  %result = call i64 @fib(i64 1)

define i64 @fib(i64) {
  %alloca = alloca i64
  store i64 %0, i64* %alloca
  %load = load i64, i64* %alloca
  switch i64 %load, label %switchcomplete [
    i64 0, label %case
    i64 1, label %case1

switchcomplete:                                   ; preds = %case1, %entry, %case
  %load2 = load i64, i64* %alloca
  %binop = sub i64 %load2, 1
  %result = call i64 @fib(i64 %binop)
  %load3 = load i64, i64* %alloca
  %binop4 = sub i64 %load3, 2
  %result5 = call i64 @fib(i64 %binop4)
  %binop6 = add i64 %result, %result5
  ret i64 %binop6

case:                                             ; preds = %entry
  ret i64 0
  br label %switchcomplete

case1:                                            ; preds = %entry
  ret i64 1
  br label %switchcomplete

This segfaults whenever I run my compiler, which currently compiles the code and immediately executed it in LLVM's MCJIT.


Whenever I run my code in my debugger, I find that I have a segfault which doesn't occur (at least at the same time) as when I run my app on the command line.

VS Code's debugger returns:

so something is happening during the FPPassManager. Apparently the FPPassManager is what handles generating code for functions (read in the source code)

getNumSuccessors was a bit nebulous for me... what does this function actually do? I wasn't familiar with the term "successor": it must be something custom to LLVM. Some Googling finds: http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#iterating-over-predecessors-successors-of-blocks

So I guess successor is referring to the number of statements that immediately follow the existing statement. getNumSuccessors in core.h of llvm specifies there are function calls for a terminator. So what precisely is a terminator?

Looking through the LLVM source code again, it's the classification for instructions that will terminate a BasicBlock. The list from LLVM9 looks like:

  /* Terminator Instructions */
  LLVMRet            = 1,
  LLVMBr             = 2,
  LLVMSwitch         = 3,
  LLVMIndirectBr     = 4,
  LLVMInvoke         = 5,
  /* removed 6 due to API changes */

Looking at the traceback, this is specifically occurring in the updatePostDominatedByUnreachable. The source code for that is:

/// Add \p BB to PostDominatedByUnreachable set if applicable.
BranchProbabilityInfo::updatePostDominatedByUnreachable(const BasicBlock *BB) {
  const Instruction *TI = BB->getTerminator();
  if (TI->getNumSuccessors() == 0) {
    if (isa<UnreachableInst>(TI) ||
        // If this block is terminated by a call to
        // @llvm.experimental.deoptimize then treat it like an unreachable since
        // the @llvm.experimental.deoptimize call is expected to practically
        // never execute.

The actual errors occurs on the first instruction of the assembly instruction:

; id = {0x00012806}, range = [0x000000000093fbb0-0x000000000093fc3b), name="llvm::TerminatorInst::getNumSuccessors() const", mangled="_ZNK4llvm14TerminatorInst16getNumSuccessorsEv"
; Source location: unknown
555555E93BB0: 0F B6 47 10                movzbl 0x10(%rdi), %eax
555555E93BB4: 48 8D 15 81 3B D5 01       leaq   0x1d53b81(%rip), %rdx
555555E93BBB: 83 E8 18                   subl   $0x

I can't read assembler very well. But since this is a method, most likely the first instruction has to do with loading the current object into memory. Most likely then, getNumSuccessors is receiving a pointer to something it doesn't expect. Most likely this is an NPE.

My hunch now is I have a basic block without a terminator statement, causing the JIT pass to fail.

There was a missing return statement on the main function. Adding that didn't change anything.

Fixing the blocks to only have terminators did indeed fix the issue! Ultimately figuring out that a validator existed, and heeding it's error messages lead to the solution.