search for: doinitalization

On Aug 11, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Larry Gritz wrote: > 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?

We have discovered the issue with our code. It seems that when the first call to doInitilization utilized one of the specified analyses, that analysis had never been properly added as required. Using gdb, we can see that addRequired is getting called (seen below) but when doInitalization is finally called, it still responds as if the analysis was not required. Is this a bug or is doInitialization not permitted to access other analyses? Our code functions correctly as a function pass as well as on any program that has other functions prior to the main function. It only fails in t...

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > I wonder in what cases FunctionPass is better that Pass. For example, > addPassesToEmitAssembly takes PassManger and addPassesToJITCompile takes > FunctionPassManager. Here's a simple way to look at it. Use a Function pass whenever you can. A function pass will always work where a Pass works (it derives from pass as you've noticed),

Hey all, We have been working on a pass that uses another pass to count loads and stores prior to performing its own instrumentation. The second pass adds the first as required via the usual getAnalysisUsage function. On one machine, it has been tested and proven to function correctly. On another machine, whenever the second pass is run, it consistently fails the assertion: opt:

I wonder in what cases FunctionPass is better that Pass. For example, addPassesToEmitAssembly takes PassManger and addPassesToJITCompile takes FunctionPassManager. Another question is about FunctionPassManager::run(Function&) and FunctionPass(Function&). The former calls the later, which is fine, but the latter looks like this: bool FunctionPass::run(Function &F) { if

Hi LLVM developers, I have successfully installed LLVM 2.9 on an ubuntu linux box, with a LLVM-based frontend support of gcc and g++. After installing successfully vmkit I have tried running my java applications, but it failed. I have installed the latest stable release of vmkit (0.29) using the introduction text of the LLVM website. The application does consist of two programs. The first

On Aug 11, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > Have you read this document? > http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#passtype Yes, but I didn't find it as instructive as I'd hoped. The only two examples of pass sets I can find are the Kaleidoscope tutorial and StandardPasses.h (corresponding, I assume, to what llvm-gcc does). Just looking at the two of these, some

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

Thanks Lang, we are making progress! I no longer get the failed assertion, but the code I'm using for vregs that don't get allocated a preg, and thus need to be spilled and re-loaded is causing assembler errors. I suspect the problem is my code for allocating space in the stack, but I don't know how to fix it. I've attached a new version of the simple register-allocation

Hi Susan, In x86-64 the REX prefix must be used to access an extended register (r8-r15 and their aliases), but cannot be used when accessing the high byte of the ABCD regs (AH, BH, CH, DH). In your test case you have hardcoded %vreg1 to R8B, and %vreg15 to AH, and the test case contains a copy between these registers. The copy simultaneously must have a REX prefix, and cannot have a REX prefix,