llvm dev - Jun 2007 - [LLVMdev] PassManager vs FunctionPassManager

Right now, addPassesToEmitFile requires a FunctionPassManager. If I'm
working with code that uses a plain PassManager and want it to generate
code, are there any options better than doing this:

/**
 * Wrapper class to run a FunctionPassManager as a ModulePass so that it
 * can be added to a plain PassManager.
 */
class FunctionPassManagerModulePass : public ModulePass {
  FunctionPassManager &Passes;
public:
  static char ID; // Pass ID, replacement for typeid
  explicit FunctionPassManagerModulePass(FunctionPassManager &FPM) :
    ModulePass((intptr_t)&ID),
    Passes(FPM)
  {}

  bool runOnModule(Module &M) {
    bool Changes = false;

    Changes |= Passes.doInitialization();

    for (Module::iterator I = M.begin(), E = M.end(); I != E; ++I)
      if (!I->isDeclaration())
        Changes |= Passes.run(*I);

    Changes |= Passes.doFinalization();

    return Changes;
  }
};


?

Thanks,

Dan

-- 
Dan Gohman, Cray Inc.

On Jun 21, 2007, at 4:13 PM, Dan Gohman wrote:
> Right now, addPassesToEmitFile requires a FunctionPassManager. If I'm
> working with code that uses a plain PassManager and want it to  
> generate
> code, are there any options better than doing this:
That's what FPPassManager does (include/llvm/PassManagers.h) .  
Function pass manager itself is a module level pass.  
FunctionPassManager is external stand alone interface hence it does  
not derive from ModulePass.

-
Devang
> /**
> * Wrapper class to run a FunctionPassManager as a ModulePass so that  
> it
> * can be added to a plain PassManager.
> */
> class FunctionPassManagerModulePass : public ModulePass {
>  FunctionPassManager &Passes;
> public:
>  static char ID; // Pass ID, replacement for typeid
>  explicit FunctionPassManagerModulePass(FunctionPassManager &FPM) :
>    ModulePass((intptr_t)&ID),
>    Passes(FPM)
>  {}
>
>  bool runOnModule(Module &M) {
>    bool Changes = false;
>
>    Changes |= Passes.doInitialization();
>
>    for (Module::iterator I = M.begin(), E = M.end(); I != E; ++I)
>      if (!I->isDeclaration())
>        Changes |= Passes.run(*I);
>
>    Changes |= Passes.doFinalization();
>
>    return Changes;
>  }
> };
>
>
> ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dan
>
> -- 
> Dan Gohman, Cray Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:37:14PM -0700, Devang Patel
wrote:
> 
> On Jun 21, 2007, at 4:13 PM, Dan Gohman wrote:
> 
> > Right now, addPassesToEmitFile requires a FunctionPassManager. If
I'm
> > working with code that uses a plain PassManager and want it to  
> > generate
> > code, are there any options better than doing this:
> 
> That's what FPPassManager does (include/llvm/PassManagers.h) .  
> Function pass manager itself is a module level pass.  
> FunctionPassManager is external stand alone interface hence it does  
> not derive from ModulePass.
To be clear, I'm specifically talking about addPassesToEmitFile and
other functions in include/llvm/Target/TargetMachine.h which, as
currently written, require an actual FunctionPassManager. It doesn't
look like FPPassManager is immediately useful here.

Looking at this some more, I'm wondering if it would make sense to
add a run(Module &) method to FunctionPassManager, for this purpose.

Dan

-- 
Dan Gohman, Cray Inc.