search for: analysismanag

...is. Is this intentional? My naive intuition is that we should have removed PreservedAnalysisT from the template and used PreservedAnalysis. However, everywhere else in the file PreservedAnalysisT is used as template parameter. Am I missing something obvious? 2- A similar issue arises when using AnalysisManager. Both PassConcept and PassModel have a template typename `AnalysisManagerT`. However, AnalysisPassConcept and AnalysisPassModel have no such template parameter; instead, they use the forward-declared AnalysisManager type, defined in PassManager.h Again, is there a particular reason for this ap...

...essing the dangling TargetLibraryInfo). How should we solve this? I see two potential solutions: 1. Analyses must somehow list the analyses they depend on (either by overriding "invalidate" to make sure that they invalidate them, or something "declarative" that would allow the AnalysisManager to walk the transitive dependencies). 2. The AnalysisManager must do a somewhat complicated dance to track when analyses call back into it in order to get other analyses. Any other ideas? Any thoughts about how best to fix this? For those interested, a reduced test case is /home/sean/pg/rele...

Hi Philip, Thanks for the response. Under llvm-5.0.2 and llvm-6.0.1 in Debug mode, the crash hit at the same assertion: /usr/local/include/llvm/IR/PassManager.h:689: typename PassT::Result& llvm::AnalysisManager<IRUnitT, ExtraArgTs>::getResult(IRUnitT&, ExtraArgTs ...) [with PassT = llvm::InnerAnalysisManagerProxy<llvm::AnalysisManager<llvm::Loop, llvm::LoopStandardAnalysisResults&>, llvm::Function>; IRUnitT = llvm::Function; ExtraArgTs = {}; typename PassT::Result = llvm::Inner...

...overview (assuming IIUC): - The driver supports simple declarative syntax for specifying passes to run. E.g., `module(a,b,function(c,d),e)` runs module passes `a` and `b`, then function passes `c` and `d` for each function, and then module pass `e`. - There is a new concept of an AnalysisManager (AM), which runs analyses on-demand and caches the results. - Analysis passes are split conceptually from transformation passes. - Analysis: run: (IRUnit*, AM*) -> Result - Transformation: run: (IRUnit*, AM*) -> PreservedAnalyses Note that neither of these...

...> >> How should we solve this? I see two potential solutions: >> 1. Analyses must somehow list the analyses they depend on (either by >> overriding "invalidate" to make sure that they invalidate them, or >> something "declarative" that would allow the AnalysisManager to walk the >> transitive dependencies). >> > > I think this is the right approach. I would personally start by overriding > the invalidate callback everywhere that it is necessary, and see how bad > that becomes. > > If it becomes common and burdensome, then we can...

Looking at the InstructionCombining.cpp code: PreservedAnalyses InstCombinePass::run(Function &F,                                        AnalysisManager<Function> &AM) {   auto &AC = AM.getResult<AssumptionAnalysis>(F);   auto &DT = AM.getResult<DominatorTreeAnalysis>(F);   auto &TLI = AM.getResult<TargetLibraryAnalysis>(F);   auto *LI = AM.getCachedResult<LoopAnalysis>(F);   // FIXME: The AliasAnal...

...me assembly utilities in BackendUtils.cpp. My initial thoughts in this direction were that there would need to be some new pass manager machinery, for example, things like FunctionToMachineFunctionPassAdaptor that handles what MachineFunctionPass::runOnFunction used to do, along with the associated AnalysisManager plumbing to understand units of MIR. 2. Are there any compile time improvements expected from porting CodeGen passes in the first place? As far as I can tell, the llc pass pipeline seems to be fairly well fixed in terms of phase ordering, and all the analyses are thrown out from opt anyway. Tha...

...e default, but we are really close > to switching over the the new one. Both opt and clang have switches to > enable the new one, by calling `opt -passes="...."` or `clang > -fexperimental-new-pass-manager`. PassBuilder is essentially a big > factory to produce PassManager and AnalysisManager objects for the passes > and analyses included in core LLVM. If you develop analyses and passes, I'd > suggest doing so against the new PM, especially if you plan on upstreaming > your work. > > Cheers, > Philip > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment...

...d = ...load module from LLVM IR bitcode file go_back.bc... auto lift_func = mod->getFunction("go_back"); if (not lift_func) {     llvm::errs() << "Error: cannot get function\n";     return 0; } auto pass_builder = llvm::PassBuilder{}; auto fa_manager = llvm::FunctionAnalysisManager{}; pass_builder.registerFunctionAnalyses(fa_manager); auto fp_manager = pass_builder.buildFunctionSimplificationPipeline(llvm::PassBuilder::OptimizationLevel::O2); fp_manager.run(*lift_func, fa_manager); ...print mod... but the program crashes always at fp_manager.run. Strange enough, LLVM&...

Hi all, I am trying to use LLVM's AliasAnalysis pass, but from a standalone tool that uses llvm libraries. The following is the code snippet I am currently using. PassBuilder PB; auto mod_manager = ModuleAnalysisManager { }; PB.registerModuleAnalyses(mod_manager); AAResults& AAR = mod_manager.getResult<AAManager>(*M); But the code fails at .getResult with the following error: /llvm/include/llvm/IR/PassManager.h:778: typename PassT::Result& llvm::AnalysisManager<IRUnitT, ExtraArgTs>::getResul...

...s currently still the default, but we are really close to switching over the the new one. Both opt and clang have switches to enable the new one, by calling `opt -passes="...."` or `clang -fexperimental-new-pass-manager`. PassBuilder is essentially a big factory to produce PassManager and AnalysisManager objects for the passes and analyses included in core LLVM. If you develop analyses and passes, I'd suggest doing so against the new PM, especially if you plan on upstreaming your work. Cheers, Philip -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://l...

...e are really close >> to switching over the the new one. Both opt and clang have switches to >> enable the new one, by calling `opt -passes="...."` or `clang >> -fexperimental-new-pass-manager`. PassBuilder is essentially a big >> factory to produce PassManager and AnalysisManager objects for the passes >> and analyses included in core LLVM. If you develop analyses and passes, I'd >> suggest doing so against the new PM, especially if you plan on upstreaming >> your work. >> >> Cheers, >> Philip >> > > -------------- next...

...h the PassBuilder to optimize the result of MCJIT (I assume, this is a requirement for performance). So I do this: llvm::PassBuilder passBuilder; llvm::ModulePassManager modulePassManager = passBuilder.buildPerModuleDefaultPipeline(llvm::PassBuilder::OptimizationLevel::O3); llvm::ModuleAnalysisManager moduleAnalysisManager; passBuilder.registerModuleAnalyses(moduleAnalysisManager); modulePassManager.run(*module, moduleAnalysisManager); with module being a pointer to an LLVM module. Unfortunately, the moduleAnalysisManager has only the module passes, but not the function ones that are...

...d we solve this? I see two potential solutions: >>>> 1. Analyses must somehow list the analyses they depend on (either by >>>> overriding "invalidate" to make sure that they invalidate them, or >>>> something "declarative" that would allow the AnalysisManager to walk the >>>> transitive dependencies). >>>> >>> >>> I think this is the right approach. I would personally start by >>> overriding the invalidate callback everywhere that it is necessary, and see >>> how bad that becomes. >>&gt...

Hello all, I have 2 separate questions: 1, What are the differences between *LegacyPassManager* and *PassManager*? I see that *opt* uses the former most of the times while the latter is used via *PassBuilder* API when an user wants to build her own pipeline, but I have no idea why so. What to use and when to use it is not clear to me. 2, I've asked this question once but have had no answer,

...;>> close to switching over the the new one. Both opt and clang have switches >>> to enable the new one, by calling `opt -passes="...."` or `clang >>> -fexperimental-new-pass-manager`. PassBuilder is essentially a big >>> factory to produce PassManager and AnalysisManager objects for the passes >>> and analyses included in core LLVM. If you develop analyses and passes, I'd >>> suggest doing so against the new PM, especially if you plan on upstreaming >>> your work. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Philip >>> &g...

...ing CFG object. From my main program main.cpp, how can I get pointer to CFG object if argv[1] = hello.c ? I have seen following places among many in clang/lib or clang/include: llvm-3.1.src/tools/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/DebugCheckers.cpp:96 - calls checkASTCodeBody(const Decl *D, AnalysisManager& mgr, BugReporter &BR) if (CFG *cfg = mgr.getCFG(D)) call cfg->dump() llvm-3.1.src/tools/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Frontend/AnalysisConsumer.cpp:472 - AnalysisConsumer::HandleCode(Decl *D, AnalysisMode Mode, SetOfConstDecls *VisitedCallees) /usr/home3/rks/llvm/llvm-3.1.src/t...

...analysis results from exposing a utility that transforms IR, and the result can certainly cache whether or not this transformation has been performed. > > ``` > FooTransformation.cpp<http://FooTransformation.cpp>: > > PreservedAnalyses FooTransformation::run(Function &F, AnalysisManager AM) { > // Must be called before getting analyses, as it might invalidate some. > canonicalizeIR<LCSSA>(F, AM); > > ... > } > > > include/IR/Canonicalization.h: > > template <typename CanonicalizationT, typename IRUnitT> > void canonicalizeIR(IRU...

...ose to switching over the the new one. Both opt and clang have switches >>>> to enable the new one, by calling `opt -passes="...."` or `clang >>>> -fexperimental-new-pass-manager`. PassBuilder is essentially a big >>>> factory to produce PassManager and AnalysisManager objects for the passes >>>> and analyses included in core LLVM. If you develop analyses and passes, I'd >>>> suggest doing so against the new PM, especially if you plan on upstreaming >>>> your work. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>&gt...

...s currently still the default, but we are really close to switching over the the new one. Both opt and clang have switches to enable the new one, by calling `opt -passes="...."` or `clang -fexperimental-new-pass-manager`. PassBuilder is essentially a big factory to produce PassManager and AnalysisManager objects for the passes and analyses included in core LLVM. If you develop analyses and passes, I'd suggest doing so against the new PM, especially if you plan on upstreaming your work. > > Cheers, > Philip > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment...