search for: analysisusag

...Analysis->depends(instructions[src], instructions[dst], true); if (dependence) { unsigned direction = dependence->getDirection(nestingLevel); // Returns DVEntry::ALL if (const SCEV* scev = dependence->getDistance(nestingLevel)) // Returns null {...} } void ExtractFeatures::getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &analysisUsage) const { analysisUsage.addRequired<LoopInfo>(); analysisUsage.addPreserved<LoopInfo>(); analysisUsage.addRequired<ScalarEvolution>(); analysisUsage.addPreserved<ScalarEvolution>(); analysisUsage.addRequired<AliasAnalys...

...ar PassManager error for what seem to be legal dependencies. Here is the situation. We have 5 passes, RegisterAllocator, FunctionLiveVarInfo, CoalesceCopies, DominanceForest, and UnionSSAVars, with dependencies as follows: class RegisterAllocator : public FunctionPass { . . . virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<FunctionLiveVarInfo>(); AU.addRequired<CoalesceCopies>(); } . . . }; class FunctionLiveVarInfo : public FunctionPass { . . . virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.setPreservesAll(); } . . . }; clas...

Hi, I'm a bit confused about the distinction between addRequired and addRequiredTransitive in AnalysisUsage. From PassAnalysisSupport.h: "REQUIRES (must be available when the pass runs), REQUIRES TRANSITIVE (must be available throughout the lifetime of the pass)." The part that's confusing me is "must be available when the pass runs". I don't see how that's any diff...

...modified = true; } else { errs() << "AlwaysInline detected\n"; } } return modified; } virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &analysisUsage) const { analysisUsage.addRequired<LoopInfo>(); analysisUsage.addPreserved<LoopInfo>(); analysisUsage.addRequired<ScalarEvolution>(); analysisUsage.addPreserved<ScalarE...

Just shows me what I expect void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { DominatorTree *dt = &getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(); So I'm only using it for DominatorTree(so I can use PromoteMemToReg). Thanks On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 11/08/2011 07:33 PM, ret val...

On Mar 31, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Trevor Harmon wrote: > I'm a bit confused about the distinction between addRequired and > addRequiredTransitive in AnalysisUsage. From PassAnalysisSupport.h: > > "REQUIRES (must be available when the pass runs), REQUIRES TRANSITIVE > (must be available throughout the lifetime of the pass)." > > The part that's confusing me is "must be available when the pass > runs". I don'...

This is just a note to mention that I just checked in this change (and fallout from it): http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20021021/000876.html Which renames: AnalysisUsage::preservesAll -> getPreservesAll AnalysisUsage::preservesCFG -> setPreservesCFG to be consistent with the already existing setPreservesAll method. This was a very confusing arrangement that Casey recently pointed out. I fixed all uses of these that are in the CVS repository. When these...

Hi Arnaldo, On 05/11/12 10:02, Arnaldo wrote: > Hi Duncan, thanks for the quick answer. > > Yes I'm sure the runOnModule is being called, and when I dump the functions > before exiting the method I can see the AlwaysInline attribute. > > I'll check InlineAlways.cpp and will reimplement as last resource but I still > wonder why this is not working. if you want more

Hi, I've written a couple of passes, and I intend to use them using llvm-ld (loading works fine). However, I can't seem to figure out how to put them first, i.e. before all other optimizations (inlining, internalizing, ... should only kick in after my passes). Omitting AnalysisUsage::setPreservesAll() doesn't help and there is no AnalysisUsage::invalidateAll(). Does anybody know a workaround? Kind regards, Bram Adams GH-SEL, INTEC, Ghent University (Belgium)

Something's different here, earlier in the thread you said you had: void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<DominatorTree>(); } Now you have: void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { DominatorTree *dt = &getAnalysis<DominatorTree>(); I'm sort of confused, why did this change happen? I think the...

Hi Hongbin I am not quite familiar with AnalysisUsage, let me correct question a bit. I have read Writing Pass <http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#specifying-interactions-between-passes>, All examples that i see here are based on collecting information .i.e Analysis Passes. I wonder if this applies to Transformation passes also. e.g....

I've just had some fun, because I wanted to override FunctionPass::addAnalysisUsage, but forgot "const" after the method name -- so instead of overriding I've just created a new unrelated method. After spending some time on this, I've decided to add -Woverloaded-virtual option to compiler to catch such cases. However, it also gives some warnings on LLVM code...

Hi Duncan, thanks for the quick answer. Yes I'm sure the runOnModule is being called, and when I dump the functions before exiting the method I can see the AlwaysInline attribute. I'll check InlineAlways.cpp and will reimplement as last resource but I still wonder why this is not working. On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Arnaldo,

...gerType): Assertion `!PMS.empty() && "Unable to find appropriate Pass Manager"' failed] ****** struct ModPass1 : public ModulePass { static char ID; ModPass1() : ModulePass((intptr_t)&ID) {} virtual bool runOnModule(Module &M) { return false; } virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const {} }; struct FunPass1 : public FunctionPass { static char ID; FunPass1() : FunctionPass((intptr_t)&ID) {} virtual bool runOnFunction(Function &F) {return false; } virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.addRequired<ModPas...

...r> X("depana", "Dependence Analysis"); I traced into struct RegisterAnalysis ctor, but my pass doesn't appear. I put it in an anonymous namespace, it doesn't work too. The class definitions: class DependenceAnalyzer : public MachineFunctionPass { virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const { AU.setPreservesAll(); AU.addRequired<LiveIntervals>(); AU.addRequired<LiveVariables>(); MachineFunctionPass::getAnalysisUsage(AU); } class RegAllocMultibank : public MachineFunctionPass { virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUs...

Is it consistent to have a Pass instance's run method's implementation use getAnalysisIfAvailable<AnalysisType>() (vs just using getAnalysis< AnalysisType >) when that same instance's getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &au) implementation invokes au.addRequired<AnalysisType>()? For example in the implementation of SelectionDAGISel::runOnMachineFunction(...) (called from MachineFunctionPass::runOnFunction(...)): DwarfWriter *DW = getAnalysisIfAvailable<DwarfWriter>(); is used vs:...

Hi all, I tried to have a LoopInfo object in a function pass, and add addRequired in getAnalysisUsage, and then use getAnalysis in runOnFunction(). It worked OK. Now I want to have a module pass to traverse the functions, and similarly, I want to have to loop information of the functions. When I did the above in runOnModule, and build the module pass, the following error popped out, and the compil...

On Feb 26, 2009, at 6:01 PM, Julien Lerouge wrote: > Hello, > > I have the following sequence of passes (using --debug- > pass=Structure): > > ... > ModulePass Manager > FunctionPass Manager > Preliminary module verification > Dominator Tree Construction > Module Verifier > MyModulePass0 > MyAnalysis > Basic CallGraph

...ure that, as long as MDA is alive and > > responding to queries, AA is alive as well. That is what > > addRequiredTransitive does. > > I'm not sure if I follow this. So let's say I'm writing a pass Foo, > and Foo depends on MDA. You're saying that Foo's getAnalysisUsage must > call addRequiredTransitive< MemoryDependenceAnalysis>, not > addRequired<MemoryDependenceAnalysis>, because otherwise the > dependencies of Foo's dependencies might be destroyed. Do I have that > right? Nope. If Foo depends on MDA, then Foo does addRequired<M...

Just noticed that quite a few passes like LoopSimplify are implemented in a single .cpp file ... this makes it impossible to specify LoopSimplify using the "addRequired" method. Was there any particular reason to do it this way? I wouldn't mind doing the splitting myself, though I am not using the CVS versions right now. Also, it would be nice to have support for some sort of a