search for: dofinally

I'm wondering if the documentation for LoopPass ( http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#LoopPass) is misleading or incorrect (or if I'm just missing something.) The documentation states: "The doFinalization method ... is called when the pass framework has finished calling runOnLoop<http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#runOnLoop> for every loop in the program being

Hello again, First of all, thanks for all the answers =) they really helped a lot =D *Have you verified that some other pass is not adding the function declarations back in after your pass is executed (e.g., by using the -debug-pass=Executions argument to see what passes run after your pass)?* I considered that for a moment, but I realized that wouldn't be possible for two reasons: I

Hi Stephen, On 13/12/12 18:58, Stephen McGruer wrote: > I'm wondering if the documentation for LoopPass > (http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#LoopPass) is misleading or > incorrect (or if I'm just missing something.) The documentation states: > > "The doFinalization method ... is called when the pass framework has finished > calling runOnLoop

On 5/6/15 11:15 AM, Kuperstein, Michael M wrote: > > I’ve always thought that the only guarantee is that > doFinalization(Module &M) runs after runOnFunction() was executed for > all functions in M, and there’s no guarantee it runs *immediately* after. > > That is, a PM may run a bunch of function passes over each function, > and only then call doFinazliation() for each

On 5/6/15 10:19 AM, Kuperstein, Michael M wrote: > > Hello Cristiano, > > I don’t think doFinalization() is really meant to be used this way. > My understanding is that doInitialization() and doFinalization() are designed specifically for modifying the LLVM IR (otherwise, why would a mutable reference to the Function be provided)? If that is not the case, then there is either a

Hello All, There is an issue in AddressSanitizer today because it depends on it's doFinalization method be called before the Printer method to output the final code (that is the printer runOnModule call). This assumption seems invalid as the doFinalization method should AFAIK only be used for clean up tasks independent of activities of other passes. When I try to call doFinalization inside

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > > On 13/12/12 18:58, Stephen McGruer wrote: > >> I'm wondering if the documentation for LoopPass >> (http://llvm.org/docs/**WritingAnLLVMPass.html#**LoopPass<http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#LoopPass>) >> is misleading or >> incorrect (or

Hi Chandler, On 17/12/12 13:47, Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr > <mailto:baldrick at free.fr>> wrote: > > Hi Stephen, > > > On 13/12/12 18:58, Stephen McGruer wrote: > > I'm wondering if the documentation for LoopPass >

Hello there, I'm writing some LLVM passes, and just ran into an interesting situation: now, I don't know if I misunderstood the way doFinalization is supposed to work, but I hope someone could help =) One of the transformations I wrote needed to replace some instructions within the code, so I needed to clean up the code after the process was completed. The pass basically swapped some

I have a FunctionPass F that needs a list of all the SCCs for use in its doFinalization() method. Let's say I write a CallGraphSCCPass C that creates an array of all SCCs. Let C be required by F, and let F call getAnalysis<C>() from its doFinalization() method. Am I guaranteed that C's runOnSCC() method will have executed on all SCCs before F's doFinalization() method?

Hi all, I find all my passes are all broken with LLVM 3.4. Then I tried out the LLVMHello.so specified in the LLVM doc, http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html and it also crashes. It seems all the functions in the pass do work, but LLVM crashes in the doFinalization() step. Does anyone know this problem? Thanks! Tianyin

Hi Pedro (et al.), On 02/14/2013 11:43 PM, Pedro Artigas wrote: > I believe what is going on is that there is an issue with the way that information is deleted (the CG information). Yeap, that's exactly the problem! :-) I noticed that the GCModuleInfo::iterator (line 931 in lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/AsmPrinter.cpp) is empty and, thus, GCMetadataPrinter::finishAssembly is never called.

As discussed in LLVMdev [1], due to the execution order of doFinalization functions, the GC information were deleted before AsmPrinter::doFinalization was executed. Thus, the GCMetadataPrinter::finishAssembly was never called. The attached patch fixes that by moving the code of the GCInfoDeleter::doFinalization to Printer::doFinalization. Pedro (cc'ed) has already taken a look at this and he

Hello Yiannis, I am not an expert on metadata or the CG information but one of the two has to happen: - Simply moving the deleter pass to a different spot - Changing the doFinalization of another pass (Printer?) to do the deleter pass job (this should work now because the doFinalization order is the reverse of the doInitialization order) Option 1 is a smaller change, option 2 will make the code

Oh, you mean opt -disable-verify? Yes, it does eliminate the crashing... Do you know what's the problem, Eric? Thanks a lot! ~t On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > Tried opt -verify on your module? > > -eric > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Tianyin Xu <tixu at cs.ucsd.edu> wrote: > > Hi all, > >

Sorry for the triple-posting! :-$ On 02/14/2013 04:30 PM, Yiannis Tsiouris wrote: > On 02/10/2013 08:47 PM, Yiannis Tsiouris wrote: >> After rebasing my local LLVM repo to ToT, I noticed that the >> finishAssembly function is not executed and, thus, the stack map is not >> printed at all. >> >> Is this a known issue or I 'm doing something wrong? >>

I have a whole slew of questions about optimization passes. Answers to any or all would be extremely helpful: How important are doInitialization/doFinalization? I can't detect any difference if I use them or not. Why does the function pass manager have doInitialization/doFinalization, but the global pass manager doesn't? If I am applying the function passes to many functions, do I

no... I guess verifier runs by default and it points to the doFinailization() function :-( ~t On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > No idea, I was suggesting to just run the verifier to see if it would > pinpoint what's broken about the module. > > -eric > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Tianyin Xu <tixu at

Hello Yiannis, I believe what is going on is that there is an issue with the way that information is deleted (the CG information). Right now there is a pass whose only job is to delete that information (CGInfoDeleter) and that pass deletes the info before the AsmPrinter has a chance to call the finishAssembly function. Right now the order that the doFinalization is called on passes is the reverse

Hi all, Currently, debug info verifier is part of the IR verifier which is a function pass. One part of the IR verifier that I don't like is it verifies module-level data in doFinalization. If we have two verifier passes in a single module pass manager, doFinalization of the two passes will run on the same module data after all passes. I followed the same model for debug info verifier: