search for: addlowerlevelrequiredpass

...; B requires A; and B does not preserve A. A valid pass ordering would be A B A C. However, opt gives the following assertion: $ opt -load libPassTest.so foo.bc -f -o /dev/null -c -debug-pass=Structure opt: /u/loc/kevin/llvm/llvm/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:1424: virtual void llvm::MPPassManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(llvm::Pass*, llvm::Pass*): Assertion `(P->getPotentialPassManagerType() < RequiredPass->getPotentialPassManagerType()) && "Unable to handle Pass that requires lower level Analysis pass"' failed. even though all passes are ModulePasses and do not require lower level p...

...tAnalysisUsage() method and then to use >> getAnalysis<PassB>(BasicBlock * BB) in PassF. >> >> A ModulePass can use a FunctionPass, so I assume a FunctionPass can use a >> BasicBlockPass in this fashion. >> > that's because FunctionPass implement the "addLowerLevelRequiredPass" function, but others not. so, is there any special reason that only "addLowerLevelRequiredPass" is allow? > >> -- John T. > > --best regards ether -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/ll...

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM, ether zhhb <etherzhhb at gmail.com> wrote: > that's because FunctionPass implement the "addLowerLevelRequiredPass" > function, but others not. > > so, is there any special reason that only "addLowerLevelRequiredPass" is > allow? > There is no reason to not allow it. It is not done because there was not any use. If you need this then pl. prepare a patch! - Devang

Dear All, I'm triggering the following assertion in MPPassManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(): assert ((P->getPotentialPassManagerType() < RequiredPass->getPotentialPassManagerType()) && "Unable to handle Pass that requires lower level Analysis pass"); As it turns out, both P and RequiredPass are both ModulePasses. Should the assertion be...

...n upped both the llvm main branch and the poolalloc today in the morning and recompiled everything from scratch : $ opt -load /home/pprabhu/llvm/llvm-install-x86-64/lib/libpoolalloc.so -ds-aa < o.bc opt: /home/pprabhu/llvm/llvm/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:1418: virtual void llvm::MPPassManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(llvm::Pass*, llvm::Pass*): Assertion `(P->getPotentialPassManagerType() < RequiredPass->getPotentialPassManagerType()) && "Unable to handle Pass that requires lower level Analysis pass"' failed. 0 opt 0x0000000000a3fcd0 1 opt 0x0000000000a40024 2 lib...

...seallocs -poolalloc-passing-all-pools - pointercompress llist-noopt.bc -o llist-dp.bc Assertion failed: ((P->getPotentialPassManagerType() < RequiredPass- >getPotentialPassManagerType()) && "Unable to handle Pass that requires lower level Analysis pass"), function addLowerLevelRequiredPass, file ~/Projects/llvmstuff/llvm/lib/VMCore/ PassManager.cpp, line 1418. Any ideas what is going wrong here? /Mattias

Devang Patel wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM, ether zhhb <etherzhhb at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> that's because FunctionPass implement the "addLowerLevelRequiredPass" >> function, but others not. >> >> so, is there any special reason that only "addLowerLevelRequiredPass" is >> allow? >> >> > > There is no reason to not allow it. It is not done because there was > not any use. If you need this then...

...n upped both the llvm main branch and the poolalloc today in the morning and recompiled everything from scratch : $ opt -load /home/pprabhu/llvm/llvm-install-x86-64/lib/libpoolalloc.so -ds-aa < o.bc opt: /home/pprabhu/llvm/llvm/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:1418: virtual void llvm::MPPassManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(llvm::Pass*, llvm::Pass*): Assertion `(P->getPotentialPassManagerType() < RequiredPass->getPotentialPassManagerType()) && "Unable to handle Pass that requires lower level Analysis pass"' failed. 0 opt 0x0000000000a3fcd0 1 opt 0x0000000000a40024 2 lib...

...> the poolalloc today in the morning and recompiled everything from > scratch : > > $ opt -load /home/pprabhu/llvm/llvm-install-x86-64/lib/libpoolalloc.so > -ds-aa < o.bc > > opt: /home/pprabhu/llvm/llvm/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:1418: virtual > void llvm::MPPassManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(llvm::Pass*, > llvm::Pass*): Assertion `(P->getPotentialPassManagerType() < > RequiredPass->getPotentialPassManagerType()) && "Unable to handle Pass > that requires lower level Analysis pass"' failed. > 0 opt 0x0000000000a3fcd0 > 1 opt 0...

hi all, i have some thing not so sure about "scope" of llvm passes: suppose i have a function pass PassF and a BasicBlock analysis pass PassB. if i want to use the analysis result of PassB for a BasicBlock in PassF, i think i can create PassB in runOnFunction of PassF, and call runOnBasicBlock manually to get the result: PassB pb; //create a PassB //we also need consider the analysis

...ms that passes with lower level than FunctionPass (such as LoopPass in my particular case) cannot be scheduled on-the-fly or must be handled by specific function managers. This is not the case for module passes, i.e. module passes requiring function ones. Is it correct ? In other words, why is addLowerLevelRequiredPass() not specialized for function managers ? I think I'm misunderstanding the whole thing, is it possible to chain transformation passes from my pass or do I chain them explicitly from the command line ? Thanks in advance, Ivan

...On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:38 PM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu> wrote: > Devang Patel wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM, ether zhhb <etherzhhb at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> that's because FunctionPass implement the "addLowerLevelRequiredPass" >>> function, but others not. >>> >>> so, is there any special reason that only "addLowerLevelRequiredPass" is >>> allow? >>> >>> >>> >> >> There is no reason to not allow it. It is not done because there was...

...h I could't fix until now. llc --load=/home/paul/LLVM/install/llvm-2.2/lib/MParSchedule.so --load=/home/paul/LLVM/install/llvm-2.2/lib/libLLVMVHDLBackend.so -f -march=vhdl test.o -o llvm.vhd llc: /home/paul/LLVM/src/llvm-2.2/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:922: virtual void llvm::PMDataManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(llvm::Pass*, llvm::Pass*): Assertion `0 && "Unable to handle Pass that requires lower level Analysis pass"' failed. llc[0x85e922c] /lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6(abort+0x101)[0x401e6981] /lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6(__assert_fail+0xee)[0x401de10e] llc(llvm::PMDataManager::addLowerLeve...

...fy. I wrote this pass among the other llvm passes in Transform/Scalar, it's not a dynamic loaded pass. It's worth to note that if I change this pass to be a ModulePass instead, the required pass LoopSimplify is scheduled on-the-fly without problems. Is there any reason to not specialize addLowerLevelRequiredPass() for function managers ? Ivan Le 23/03/2012 17:00, Ivan Llopard a écrit : > Hi, > > I'm writing a function pass which is dynamically loaded by opt and I > need some analysis and passes to be run before my pass: > > virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU)...

...te: > > Devang Patel wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM, ether zhhb > <etherzhhb at gmail.com <mailto:etherzhhb at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > that's because FunctionPass implement the > "addLowerLevelRequiredPass" > function, but others not. > > so, is there any special reason that only > "addLowerLevelRequiredPass" is > allow? > > > > > There is no reason to not allow it. It is not done beca...

Dear all, I would like to use the PostDominatorTree in ArgPromotion. I did not find an example of how to use function level analysis inside CallGraphSCCPass. I tried to follow an example of how to use function-level pass in a module pass, but I hit "llvm_unreachable" in PMDataManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass. What would be a proper way to make PostDominatorTree available in ArgPromotion? Thanks in advance, Mikhail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200107/dd1bc481/attachment.html>

...sUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<AssumptionCacheTracker>(); AU.addRequired<TargetLibraryInfoWrapperPass>();+ AU.addRequired<LoopInfoWrapperPass>(); getAAResultsAnalysisUsage(AU); CallGraphSCCPass::getAnalysisUsage(AU);} I get llvm_unreachable in `void PMDataManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(Pass *P, Pass *RequiredPass)' Thanks,-Aditya -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160321/e25708b1/attachment.html>

...oc/trunk/ poolalloc and built without enabling optimizations, on linux x86_64 but when I try to run opt -load=$HOME/src/llvm/projects/poolalloc/Debug/lib/libLLVMDataStructure.so -ds-aa -print-alias-sets -disable-output hello.bc I get opt: PassManager.cpp:1416: virtual void llvm::MPPassManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(llvm::Pass*, llvm::Pass*): Assertion `(P->getPotentialPassManagerType() < RequiredPass->getPotentialPassManagerType()) && "Unable to handle Pass that requires lower level Analysis pass"' failed. So my question is whether I am doing something obviously wrong, or other...

Can anyone explain what this means? llvm/include/llvm/PassManagers.h:232: virtual void llvm::PMDataManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(llvm::Pass*, llvm::Pass*): Assertion `0 && "Unable to handle Pass that requires lower level Analysis pass"' failed. -Dave

I've never been able to figure this one out: llvm/lib/VMCore/PassManager.cpp:938: virtual void llvm::PMDataManager::addLowerLevelRequiredPass(llvm::Pass*, llvm::Pass*): Assertion `0 && "Unable to handle Pass that requires lower level Analysis pass"' failed. In the past, I've resolved this by disabling random addRequired calls in the offending Pass, even when those dependencies are real. So what does this ass...